[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36670-36725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14473]
[[Page 36669]]
Vol. 84
Monday,
No. 145
July 29, 2019
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 36670]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047; FRL-9996-22-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU18
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP): Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills source
category. The EPA is proposing decisions concerning the residual risk
and technology review (RTR). The EPA is also proposing amendments to
correct and clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); revise wellhead
operational standards and corrective action to improve effectiveness
and provide compliance flexibility; reorganize rule text to incorporate
provisions from the new source performance standards (NSPS) within this
subpart; and add requirements for electronic reporting of performance
test results. The EPA is also proposing minor changes to the MSW
Landfills NSPS and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for MSW
Landfills. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to add provisions to the
most recent MSW Landfills NSPS and Emission Guidelines (EG) that would
allow affected sources to demonstrate compliance with landfill gas
control, operating, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of the most recent NSPS and EG by following the
corresponding requirements in the MSW Landfills NESHAP.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 12,
2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before August 28, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before August 5, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-national-emission-standards. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0047, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0047 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0047.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Andrew Sheppard, Natural Resources Group, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4161;
fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: [email protected].
For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology,
contact Jim Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email
address: [email protected]. For questions about monitoring and
testing requirements, contact Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; fax
number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564-7027; and email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or
by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0047. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise
[[Page 36671]]
protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This type of
information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
ADI Applicability Determination Index
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRT Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHIEF Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors
CO carbon monoxide
DASEC discrete area source eddy covariance
DFW Dallas Fort Worth
EC eddy covariance
EG emission guidelines
EL expansion lag
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GCCS gas collection and control system
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HOV higher operating value
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
LFG landfill gas
LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
Mg/yr megagrams per year
MIR maximum individual risk
MSW municipal solid waste
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NMOC non-methane organic compounds
NRC National Research Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OTM Other Test Method
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT reasonably available control technology
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC Source Classification Code
SOE subsurface oxidation event
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SWANA Solid Waste Association of North America
TC tracer correlation
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
[[Page 36672]]
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
A. Methane Emissions Measurement Methodologies
B. Areas With Declining Gas Flow
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA) and associated regulated industrial source categories that are
the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that
this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once
promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources.
Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities could be affected
by this proposed action because these entities are often the owners or
operators of MSW landfills. As defined in the Initial List of
Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation
for Developing the Initial Source Category List, Final Report (see EPA-
450/3-91-030, July 1992), the MSW Landfills source category is any
facility that is an entire disposal facility in a contiguous
geographical space where household waste is placed in or on land. An
MSW landfill may also receive commercial waste, sludges, and industrial
waste. An MSW landfill may also receive other types of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D wastes (see 40 CFR
257.2) such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge,
conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and industrial
solid waste portions of an MSW landfill may be separated by access
roads. An MSW landfill may be publicly or privately owned.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry: Air and water resource and solid MSW Landfills.................................. 924110
waste management.
Industry: Refuse systems--solid waste 562212
landfills.
State, local, and tribal government agencies. 562212, 924110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-national-emission-standards. Following publication in
the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of
the proposal and key technical documents at this same website.
Information on the overall RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for revisions to the MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) is provided by sections 112 and 301 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section
112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop
standards for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing
technology-based standards and the second stage involves evaluating
those standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there
are ``developments in practices, processes, and control technologies''
that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. CAA section
112(d)(6). This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking,
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement
these
[[Page 36673]]
statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the
document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory
Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See
National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1082-
1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 673-674
(D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to
revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
The EPA is proposing amendments to the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR
part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpaft Cf) under the
authority of CAA sections 111(b) and 111(d). In 1991, under authority
of section 111(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, the EPA added the source category
MSW Landfills to the priority list in 40 CFR 60.16 because, in the
judgment of the Administrator, the source category contributes
significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare (56 FR 24468, May 30, 1991). In that
same action (56 FR 24468), the EPA proposed NSPS for new MSW landfills
under section 111(b) of the CAA and proposed EG for existing MSW
landfills under section 111(d) of the CAA.
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The NESHAP for the MSW Landfills source category, the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills (herein after referred to as the ``MSW Landfills NESHAP''),
was promulgated on January 16, 2003 (68 FR 2227), and is codified at 40
CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. As promulgated in 2003 and further amended
on April 20, 2006 (71 FR 20462), the MSW Landfills NESHAP regulates HAP
emissions from MSW landfills that are either major and area sources.
The MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) applies to
MSW landfills that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987, or have
additional capacity for waste deposition and are major sources, are
collocated with major sources, or are area source landfills with a
design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and
2.5 million cubic meters (m\3\) and have estimated uncontrolled
emissions equal to or greater than 50 Mg/yr non-methane organic
compounds (NMOC). The MSW
[[Page 36674]]
Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) also applies to MSW
landfills that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987, and include
a bioreactor and are major sources, are collocated with major sources,
or are area source landfills with a design capacity equal to or greater
than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\ that were not permanently
closed as of January 16, 2003.
The majority of emissions of HAP at MSW landfills come from the
continuous biodegradation of the MSW in the landfill and the formation
of landfill gas emissions. Landfill gas emissions contain methane,
carbon dioxide, and more than 100 different NMOC. The HAP emitted by
MSW landfills include, but are not limited to, vinyl chloride, ethyl
benzene, toluene, and benzene (61 FR 9906, March 12, 1996). The owner
or operator of a landfill may control the gas by routing it to a non-
enclosed flare, an enclosed combustion device, or a treatment system
that processes the collected gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use.
The MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) regulates
HAP emissions by requiring MSW landfills that exceed the size and
emission thresholds to install and operate a landfill gas collection
and control system (GCCS), as enumerated in the original NSPS for MSW
landfills (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW), the Federal Plan (40 CFR part
62, subpart GGG), or an EPA-approved state plan or tribal plan that
implements the EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc). The MSW Landfills
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) achieves emission reductions
through a well-designed and well-operated landfill gas (LFG) collection
and control system with a control device capable of reducing NMOC by 98
percent by weight. NMOC is a surrogate for LFG. The GCCS must be
installed within 30 months after an MSW landfill that exceeds the
design capacity threshold (2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\) reaches
or exceeds an NMOC level of 50 Mg/yr. The landfill must expand the
system to collect gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the
landfill in which the initial solid waste has been placed for a period
of 5 years or more if active; or 2 years or more if closed or at final
grade. The collection and control system may be capped or removed when
the landfill is closed, the system has operated 15 years, and NMOC
emissions are below 50 Mg/yr.
In addition, the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA) requires timely control of bioreactors. A bioreactor is an MSW
landfill or portion of the landfill where any liquid other than
leachate is added to the waste mass to reach a minimum average moisture
content of at least 40 percent by weight to accelerate or enhance the
biodegradation of the waste. New bioreactors must install the GCCS in
the bioreactor prior to initiating liquids addition, regardless of
whether the landfill emissions rate equals or exceeds the estimated
uncontrolled emissions rate; existing bioreactors must install the GCCS
before initiating liquids addition and must begin operating the GCCS
within 180 days after initiating liquids addition or within 180 days
after achieving a moisture content of 40 percent by weight, whichever
is later.
Based on modeled emission estimates in the 2016 NSPS/EG datasets,
and supplementary searching of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
(GHGRP) data, located in 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH, the EPA Landfill
Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) Landfill and LFG Energy Project
Database, and selected permits, as of 2014, there were between 664 and
709 MSW landfills subject to the collection and control requirements of
the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA). The exact list
of facilities subject to the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAA) is unknown because many landfills collect site-specific
data for NMOC concentrations using the Tier 2 provisions allowed under
the regulation to compute the NMOC annual emission rates. A list of
facilities that were expected to be subject to the MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) based on modeled emissions and a default
NMOC concentration of 595 parts per million by volume (ppmv) is
available in the RTR dataset.\2\ It is estimated that these landfills
emit between 2,242 and 4,586 Mg/yr of HAP, after considering current
control requirements. Most of these emissions are fugitive emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ MSW Landfills NESHAP RTR Draft Emissions Modeling File. May
2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-national-emission-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The EPA did not gather a substantial amount of new data for this
RTR proposal because data were recently gathered and compiled to
support the 2016 NSPS/EG rulemaking (see 81 FR 59332 and 81 FR 59276,
August 29, 2016). These regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart XXX (NSPS) and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf (EG) and are
hereinafter referred to as the ``MSW Landfills NSPS'' and ``MSW
landfills EG.'' However, the EPA did focus additional data collection
efforts in three main areas.
First, the EPA analyzed locations of the landfills, flares, and any
engines, turbines or other destruction devices for the approximately
700 affected facilities by utilizing Google Maps(copyright). Because
the database for the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX)
contained only a single coordinate for each facility, every landfill
was visually inspected on Google Maps(copyright) to ensure the correct
location for each emission point. Additionally, some coordinates in the
MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) were for an office or
headquarters away from the actual landfill location, so state records
or permits were gathered to assist narrowing down the true location of
these sources.
Second, the EPA visited four landfills in September 2018. These
landfills were the Waste Management Dallas Fort-Worth (DFW) Landfill in
Lewisville, Texas; the 121 Regional Disposal Facility and renewable
natural gas production plant in Melissa, Texas; the City of Grand
Prairie Landfill in Grand Prairie, Texas; and the Hunter Ferrell
Landfill in Irving, Texas. The EPA discussed materials handling,
materials/waste screening and separation, basic overview of waste
acceptance history and general size, the use of liquids addition or
leachate recirculation at the landfill, and design and operation of
landfill GCCS components, including energy recovery devices and
monitoring procedures to ensure a well-operated and well-controlled LFG
GCCS. At the DFW Landfill, the EPA observed a quarterly surface
emission monitoring event. The site visits are documented in separate
reports that are available in the docket for this action: Site Visit
Report--DFW Landfill, Lewisville, Texas; Site Visit Report--121
Landfill, Melissa, Texas; Site Visit Report--City of Grand Prairie
Landfill, Grand Prairie, Texas; and Site Visit Report--Hunter Ferrell
Landfill, Irving, Texas.
Third, emission factors were calculated for conventional landfills
using data that were initially used for the 2008 Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) draft emission factors for this
source category in addition to data submitted in response of this
draft.\3\ Although thesse data are not ``new,'' these data came after
the
[[Page 36675]]
original promulgation of the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAA). These emission factors were applied to estimated
landfill gas flow rates to estimate the HAP emissions from landfills
for the risk analysis. Further detail on the emission factor
devleopment can be found in the document, Residual Risk Assessment for
the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, located in EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. EPA. AP42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 2.4:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Draft Section. October 2008.
Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we are coordinating with the EPA Office of Land and
Emergency Management on relevant data received on the Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), Revisions to the Criteria for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills To Address Advances in Liquids Management (83 FR
66210; December 26, 2018). Specifically, this notice describes the
NESHAP definition for bioreactor landfill units, but indicates the EPA
is contemplating future revisions that could define a bioreactor
landfill as including other factors such as whether liquids are added
intentionally for any purpose other than cleaning, maintenance, and
wetting of daily cover; the average amount of annual precipitation in
an area; whether leachate is recirculated; and the magnitude of the
first-order biodegradation constant (k), or unintentially (i.e., from
extreme weather events). Relatedly, the ANPRM distinguishes between
bioreactor landfill units to which liquids are purposefully added and
``wet landfill units,'' which are MSW landfills operating at high
levels of moisture content. Readers are directed to that docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0047) to review the data and information solicited and
received in response to the ANPRM, which will inform the EPA in making
determinations concerning what actions, if any, to take when
undertaking future revisions to MSW landfill related provisions.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
The EPA used data and information from the 2016 NSPS/EG MSW
Landfill rulemaking databases, the GHGRP (40 CFR part 98, subpart HH),
and the EPA LMOP Landfill and LFG Energy Project Database to support
this proposed rulemaking. We used these data to develop the modeling
file for the risk review. The EPA used these same sources as well as
additional information regarding the timing of GCCS installations and
expansions and the types of LFG control devices installed at landfills
from selected permits, state regulations, Federal regulations affecting
landfills other than the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA), consent decrees for MSW landfills, and Reasonably Available
Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse, and literature sources,
to identify additional control technologies for the technology review.
The EPA also reviewed the Applicability Determination Index (ADI),\4\
consent decrees, and data available from EPA Regions related to
requests for corrective action and higher operating values for
wellheads. See sections IV.A, IV.B, IV.C, and IV.E of this preamble for
further detail on the use of these sources of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA. ADI. https://cfpub.epa.gov/adi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\5\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.
See 54 FR 38044, 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR
is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk.
The Benzene NESHAP explained that a ``MIR of approximately 1 in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes [a]MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP
that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many
[[Page 36676]]
factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety
can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs
mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the
health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.''
Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the
various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review (RTR)
Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency: (1) Conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections
II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.B of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The eight sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the MSW
Landfills Source Category in Support of the 2019
[[Page 36677]]
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess
risk (as described in the eight primary steps below) are consistent
with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of
the EPA's SAB in 2009; \7\ and described in the SAB review report
issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations
contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The initial list of facilities was based on the 2016 NSPS/EG
database by selecting landfills that had an annual NMOC emission rate
of 50 Mg/yr or greater in 2014. This faciliy list was then examined
one-by-one using Google Earth to verify the boundaries of the landfill
itself, as well as stack locations for any flare or control devices.
Total flow rate of landfill gas was estimated utilizing the same method
as the 2016 NSPS/EG, described below.
The EPA created a Microsoft[supreg] Access database of landfills
for the 2016 NSPS and EG rules. Additional detail about the database
can be found in the docketed memorandum, Summary of Updated Landfill
Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills
Regulations, 2016. Within the database, we programmed a series of
calculations in the database (hereinafter referred to as the ``model'')
to estimate LFG flow rates using a first-order decay equation and the
associated cost and emission reduction impacts for each landfill
expected to control emissions by the NSPS and EG regulations in a
particular year. The model estimated flow rates using default
parameters from AP-42 \8\ for NMOC, methane generation potential
(L0), and the methane generation rate (k). A detailed
discussion of the methodology, modeling parameters, and equations used
to estimate the LFG flow rate are available in the docketed memorandum,
Revised Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW
Landfill Regulations, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. EPA, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 1995.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total collected landfill gas was estimated using available
information including the calculated LFG flow rate described above.
Total collected landfill gas was estimated by using the maximum value
of landfill gas reported as collected in GHGRP for 2014, LMOP reported
collected gas where GHGRP collection in 2014 was not provided, LMOP
reported flow rate to projects or 85 percent of the 2016 NSPS and EG
database's total flow rate. In cases where the total collected landfill
gas estimation exceeded the modeled total flow rate of landfill gas,
total landfill gas flow rate was back-calculated using GHGRP's
estimated gas collection efficiency (or 85 percent when not available).
Fugitive landfill emissions were calculated by subtracting the total
collected landfill gas estimation from the total landfill gas flow
rate, whether it was modeled or back-calculated. Landfill gas flow to
engines was used for instances that LMOP had reported landfill gas flow
to projects. We assumed that all LMOP projects were engines with 98-
percent destruction efficiency for this modeling effort. We also
assumed any additional collected landfill gas estimation beyond what
LMOP listed as flow to a project went to a flare with 86-percent
destruction efficiency. Stack parameters were not available for the
source category, therefore, default parameters were developed using RTR
default values developed by the EPA based on Source Classification Code
(SCC) and assigned accordingly. Once we calculated all landfill gas
emissions and estimated the amount of landfill gas flow to engines and
flares, we applied emission factors to estimate HAP emissions from
these sources.
To estimate HAP using a factor applied to landfill gas collection
or generation estimates, we determined the appropriate basis of the
factor. Although the 1998 Final AP-42 is commonly used to calculate
emissions in inventories, the 1998 Final AP-42 is outdated and has very
few HAP emission factors. The 1998 Final AP-42 has factors for 47
different compounds, 23 of which are HAP. In 2008, the EPA drafted AP-
42 emission factors for this source category. The 2008 proposed factors
were based on 47 test reports containing speciated organic and reduced
sulfur compound data that could be corrected for air infiltration. This
draft had emission factors for 173 compounds. In response to this
draft, the EPA received public comments and additional data on the
proposed AP-42 emission factor updates. This included 446 new test
reports, of which 242 were unique complete test reports. 116 unique
landfills were represented in the new data. Overall, including the
original data and additional data submissions, test reports were
available for landfills in 37 different states. This complete dataset
(the data used to calculate the 2008 Draft AP-42 plus the new test
reports) was used to calculate HAP emission factors for use in the RTR
for the MSW Landfills NESHAP.
These data were analyzed for errors and the concentrations were
corrected for air infiltration, in the same fashion the 2008 data were
quality controlled. These two datasets were combined with the 2008
dataset. All non-detect data were removed. Then to remove outliers,
data points that were two standard deviations above or below the mean
of each HAP were removed. Each HAP's data were then averaged to develop
the emission factor. The docket for this rulemaking contains the
following document, which provides more information on the emission
factor development as well as the emission estimation calculations:
Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation for the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills Source Category.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
Because the requirements under the NESHAP are for all landfills
that exceed the NMOC threshold to install a gas collection and control
system, allowable emissions were equal to the calculated actual
emissions, therefore, the allowable multiplier is 1. Because the
landfill owner or operator is required to operate the GCCS at all
times, there is
[[Page 36678]]
no differentiation between actual and allowable emissions.
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\9\ The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\10\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \11\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\11\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m3)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The
URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been
developed in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have
undergone a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may
use such dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other
values, if appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values
used to estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \12\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime.'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic
[[Page 36679]]
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference
Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response
value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA
guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used
by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the environment,\13\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk
Assessment for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in
Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk
Screening Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR
rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\14\ reasonable worst-case dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of
the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \15\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\16\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above
which it is predicted that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\16\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs, (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \17\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36680]]
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, we used the default multiplication factor
of 10. While we don't anticipate large variations in acute hourly
emissions, we took a conservative approach to determine if the default
multiplication factor would result in high risk. Upon modeling the
emissions using the acute multiplication factor of 10, we determined
that the noncancer risk was still below a HQ of 1. Due to the low risk
results, further research to justify a lower multiplication factor was
not necessary.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
assess site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-site
location. For this source category, we did not have to perform any
refined acute assessments.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source category emit any PB-HAP, as
identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume
1, Appendix D, at https://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library.)
For the MSW Landfills source category, we identified PB-HAP
emissions of mercury, so we proceeded to the next step of the
evaluation. In this step, we determine whether the facility-specific
emission rates of the emitted PB-HAP are large enough to create the
potential for significant human health risk through ingestion exposure
under reasonable worst-case conditions. To facilitate this step, we use
previously developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-
HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure
scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk
Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates
are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins
and furans, mercury compounds, and polycyclic organic matter (POM).
Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation potential,
the pollutants above represent a conservative list for inclusion in
multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume 1, Appendix D
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we compare the facility-
specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the screening threshold
emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the potential for significant
human health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application
of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a
facility's actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate is a ``screening value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening
assessment.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within
50 km of each facility. We also examine the differences between local
meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1
screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each facility
based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for
the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and
USGS waterbody data. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed
the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates and data are available,
we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. If PB-HAP emission rates
do not exceed a Tier 2 screening value of 1, we consider those PB-HAP
emissions to pose risks below a level of concern.
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport. If the Tier 3 screening assessment
indicates that risks above levels of concern cannot be ruled out, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review
2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
5. How do we assess risks considering emissions control options?
In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening
for potential multipathway risks, we also estimate risks considering
the potential emission reductions that would be achieved by the control
options under consideration. In these cases, the expected emission
reductions are applied to the specific HAP and emission points in the
RTR emissions dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk and
incremental risk reductions.
6. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect''
[[Page 36681]]
as ``any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may
reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural
resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or
threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality
over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Source Category in
Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the MSW Landfills source category
emitted any of the environmental HAP. For the MSW Landfills source
category, we identified emissions of mercury. Because mercury is listed
as an environmental HAP and is emitted by at least one facility in the
source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the
facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. The
secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable means of evaluating environmental
risk, because it is set to provide substantial protection against
adverse welfare effects which can include ``effects on soils, water,
crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather,
visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and
hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on
personal comfort and well-being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse
[[Page 36682]]
environmental effect (as defined in Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA) from
emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics: The size of
the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological
benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the percentage of the
modeled area around each facility that exceeds the ecological benchmark
for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average screening value around
each facility (calculated by dividing the area-weighted average
concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological
benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
7. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using the same dataset that was compiled for actual emissions. The
modeled emissions were based upon EPA-derived emission factors for the
source category. The facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks
due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the
populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the
methods used for the source category analysis described above. For
these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks
were the same as the facility-wide risks. The Residual Risk Assessment
for the MSW Landfills Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, available through the docket for
this action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide
analyses, including all facility-wide risks.
8. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
MSW Landfills Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this
action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was performed for
this source category, a full discussion of the uncertainties associated
with that assessment can be found in Appendix 11 of that document,
Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment
Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission
rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an
emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly
emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations
due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is
[[Page 36683]]
stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\18\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\19\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\20\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\19\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\20\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002 (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/rfd-final.pdf),
and Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations
and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994 (https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=71993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most
cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of
maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model,
[[Page 36684]]
including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest,
lake location and size, meteorology, surface water, soil
characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We also assume
an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors
that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
The inhalation risk modeling performed to estimate risks based on
actual, allowable, and whole facility emissions relied primarily on
emissions factors derived by the EPA.
The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk
assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual,
allowable, and whole facility emissions under 40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA, the MIR posed by the source category could be as high as 10-in-1
million. The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual emission
levels is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 25 years.
The total estimated cancer incidence based on allowable emission levels
is 0.05 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 20 years.
Fugitive air emissions of benzene-based pollutants contributed
approximately 50 percent to the cancer incidence. The population
exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million based
upon actual emissions is 18,300 (see Table 2 of this preamble).
Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Source Category
[40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer MIR (in 1 million) Based upon actual emissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Population
Cancer with risk of with risk of Max chronic
Based on actual emissions Based on allowable incidence 1-in-1 10-in-1 noncancer HI
\1\ emissions (cases per million or million or (actuals and
year) more more allowables)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................. 10 (p-dichlorobenzene, 10 (p-dichlorobenzene, 0.04 18,300 11 HI < 1
ethyl benzene, benzene). ethyl benzene, benzene).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Whole facility emissions are equal to actual emissions and have the same risk.
2. Acute Risk Results
Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts based on actual
emissions indicates that no pollutants exceed an acute HQ value of 1
based upon the REL. The acute hourly multiplier utilized a default
factor of 10 for all emission processes.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
The multipathway risk screening assessment resulted in a maximum
Tier 2 noncancer screening value of less than 1 for mercury. Mercury
was the only PB-HAP emitted by the source category. Based on these
results, we are confident that the noncancer risks due to multipathway
exposures have an HI less than 1.
[[Page 36685]]
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The ecological risk screening assessment indicated all modeled
points were below the Tier 1 screening threshold based on actual
emissions of mercury emitted by the source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
An assessment of whole-facility risks was performed as described
above in Table 2 of this preamble. Whole-facility modeled emissions
were the same as actuals for this source category. Refer to Section B1
of the Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for a discussion of the
health risks.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for six of the
11 demographic groups; (African American, Other and Multiracial,
Hispanic, below the poverty level, and those individuals over 25
without a highschool diploma) that are living within 5 km of facilities
in the source category exceed the corresponding national percentage for
the same demographic groups. When examining the risk levels of those
exposed to emissions from MSW landfill facilities, we find 18,200
people are exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no
individuals or groups exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than
1.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ There may be small differences between the Environment
Justice (EJ) Tool's total population within 50 km and HEM-3's total
domain population, because some of the 2010 Census blocks modeled by
HEM-3 (which have a non-zero population) match to American Community
Survey 2014 Census block groups that have a population of zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near MSW Landfills,
available in the docket for this action.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the MSW Landfills source
category across different demographic groups within the populations
living near facilities.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--MSW Landfills Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Solid Waste landfills Source Category: Demographic Assessment Results--50 km Study Area Radius
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
with cancer
risk greater Population
than or equal with HI
to 1-in-1 greater than 1
million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................ 317,746,049 18,217 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White and minority by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White........................................................... 62 58 0
Minority........................................................ 38 42 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American................................................ 12 13 0
Native American................................................. 0.8 0.1 0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................ 18 20 0
Other and Multiracial........................................... 7 8 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............................................. 14 15 0
Above Poverty Level............................................. 86 85 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma....................... 14 17 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.......................... 86 83 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically isolated by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................... 6 8 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The percentages of the at-risk population in each demographic group
(except for White, Native American, and Non-Hispanic) are lower than
their respective nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and
[[Page 36686]]
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Source Category Operations,
available in the docket for this action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). In this proposal,
the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from
MSW landfills, and we considered these in determining acceptability.
For the MSW Landfills source category, the risk analysis indicates
that the cancer risk to the individual most exposed is below 10-in-1
million from both actual and allowable emissions. This risk is
considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper
limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also estimates a cancer
incidence of 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 20
years, as well as a maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value below 1
(0.1). In addition, the risk assessment indicates no significant
potential for multipathway health effects.
The results of the acute screening analysis also estimate a maximum
acute noncancer HQ value of less than 1 based on the acute REL. By
definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of
exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for
repeated exposures.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III
of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the MSW Landfills
source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine whether the current emissions standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of
safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available
control technologies and other measures (including the controls,
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be
applied to this source category to further reduce the risks (or
potential risks) due to emissions of HAP identified in the risk
assessment. In this analysis, we considered the results of the
technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule
review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or
other measures that would reduce emissions further.
The risks from this source category were deemed acceptable with a
maximum upper-bound chronic excess cancer risk of 10-in-1 million from
1 facility and 168 facilities with an excess cancer risk greater than
or equal to 1-in-1 million but less than 10-in-1 million. Our risk
analysis indicated the risks from this source category are low for both
cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any risk
reductions to control fugitive landfill emissions would result in
minimal health benefits. Fugitive landfill emissions result in 84
percent of the cancer incidence for this source category. Based upon
results of the risk analysis and our evaluation of the technical
feasibility and cost of the option(s) to reduce landfill fugitive
emissions, we are proposing that the current MSW Landfills NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) provides an ample margin of safety to
protect the public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
For the MSW Landfills source category, we did not identify
emissions of any environmental HAP. Because we did not identify
environmental HAP emissions, we expect no adverse environmental
effects.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
To fulfill the obligations under CAA section 112(d)(6), we
conducted a technology review to identify developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that may warrant revisions to the
current MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA). In
conducting our technology review, we researched data reported to the
U.S. EPA GHGRP (40 CFR part 98, subpart HH), the U.S. EPA LMOP Landfill
and LFG Energy Database, state regulations, Federal regulations other
than the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA), permits,
the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, enforcement consent decrees, and
literature sources.
Our research identified three types of developments that could lead
to additional control of HAP from MSW landfills. The three potential
developments are practices to reduce HAP formation within a landfill,
to collect more landfill gas for control or treatment, and to achieve a
greater level of HAP destruction in the collected landfill gas. After
analyzing these options, we determined that changes to the MSW
Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) are not warranted at
this time, because each option is either not technically feasible or
the cost is not justified for the level of emission reduction
achievable.
1. Reduce HAP Formation
To reduce HAP formation in a landfill requires a program to divert
or restrict certain types of wastes from disposal in an MSW landfill.
Restricting certain wastes would reduce emissions because the quantity
of HAP emitted is a function of the amount of waste disposed and the
composition of the waste. For example, household wastes could contain
numerous components that emit HAP, e.g., paints, solvents, paint
thinners, used motor oil, insecticides, pesticides, and household
cleaning products. Diverting these materials from MSW landfills will
reduce both the volume and HAP concentration of landfill gas emitted.
Many states already have programs to prohibit landfill disposal of such
products and other materials, such as electronic devices, tires,
plastics, batteries, and yard waste.
We have determined that mandating programs for landfill operators
to ban or recycle wastes is not technically feasible. Although some
successful programs exist for waste diversion, recycling, and
alternative disposal, these programs are not typically operated by
landfill owners or operators, but often involve rules that affect
generators, haulers, and third party processors. A landfill owner or
operator could require waste separation by banning certain materials
from entering the landfill. However, it would not be feasible for the
landfill owner or operator to enforce such bans, because policing the
content of every truck passing the gate of a landfill is economically
unreasonable and technically impracticable.
2. Collect More Landfill Gas
More gas could be collected by requiring the GCCS to be installed
earlier, requiring the GCCS to be expanded more frequently than
currently required by the NESHAP, or requiring the GCCS to remain in
place longer than currently required. The current MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40
[[Page 36687]]
CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) requires that landfills with a design
capacity of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\ and an NMOC emission
rate exceeding 50 Mg/yr must install controls. The GCCS must be
installed within 30 months of the initial NMOC report that exceeds the
50 Mg/yr emission threshold and then expanded every 5 years in active
fill areas, or every 2 years in closed areas.
Earlier gas collection is technically feasible. Earlier gas
collection could be accomplished by lowering the NMOC emission rate
below 50 Mg/yr either alone or in conjunction with the design capacity
to below 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\. Earlier gas collection
could also be accomplished by shortenting the initial 30-month lag time
for installing a GCCS or reducing the amount of time required before
the GCCS is expanded. Although earlier gas collection, or more frequent
expansion of a GCCS expansion, could require some technical design
changes (e.g., horizontal gas collection system), this equipment is
commercially available and in use at many landfills today. Horizontal
collection trenches can be installed during the filling of the landfill
so that gas collection can commence earlier than with the more
typically used vertical gas wells, although sufficient waste must be
placed on top of the trenches before vacuum can be applied to the
trench, in order to minimize air intrustion. Passive flares have been
demonstrated to operate more effectively than active flares when the
quantity of gas generation is low or the quality of the gas decreases
to lower methane content, or if the landfill gas is contained by
impermeable liners on the bottom, sides, and top of the landfill. Our
evaluation of available data from the GHGRP and LMOP indicate that
1,199 landfills have installed a GCCS in 2014, compared to between 625
and 700 landfills that are estimated to have installed controls, based
on modeling under the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA). These data demonstrate that earlier gas collection is
technically feasible. Additionally, the 2016 MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR
part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf) both employ
an NMOC emission rate of 34 Mg/yr, but it is not known how many
landfills are controlling pursuant to these new 2016 regulations.
Moreover, states, including California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania, use different regulatory metrics to require gas
collection earlier than required by the NESHAP.
Another means of increasing the collection efficiency of GCCSs is
to install cover material earlier. Studies have shown increased
collection efficiencies, depending on the type of cover. However, the
effectiveness of early final cover installation depends on site-
specific circumstances such as the filling sequence and cell design of
the landfill. We identified no state regulations, permit conditions, or
other research that prescribed conditions under which regulating the
timing of final cover installation is a technically and economically
feasible strategy for improving gas collection.
We also considered whether a biocover provides more HAP control
than a traditional clay cover. A biocover is a layer of media
containing methanotrophic bacteria that digest and oxidize organic
matter. Although these bacteria can be found in soil, other materials
can be used as cover material or added to clay covers to enhance the
environmental conditions for bacteria growth, which increases the
oxidation. Most biocover research and most installations have been
directed at methane emission reductions. However, a few studies have
indicated that biocovers can microbially degrade volatile organic
compounds as well, including some of the HAP contained in landfill gas.
Although a number of landfills have reported using a biocover on at
least a portion of the surface, the long-term HAP reduction performance
of oxidative covers has not yet been adequately demonstrated in a full-
scale industrial setting at a landfill.
Biocovers and earlier installation of final covers were not deemed
technically feasible, and, therefore, the cost and reductions for these
control practices were not further analyzed. Because earlier GCCS
installation was technically feasible, we evaluated the cost for three
options for enhanced gas collection, which are as follows:
Reduce the NMOC emission threshold for initial
installation of GCCS from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr for all landfills that
are open in 2015. For landfills that closed in 2014 or earlier, these
remained at the baseline level of 50 Mg/yr NMOC.
Retain the baseline NMOC emission threshold (50 Mg/yr
NMOC) but reduce the expansion lag (EL) time from an average of 4 to 3
years for landfills that closed after 2014. The ``expansion lag time''
is the amount of time allotted for the landfill to expand the GCCS into
new areas of the landfill. The rule currently allows 5 years for active
areas and 2 years for areas that are closed or at final grade, but the
EPA understands most landfills are choosing the 5-year option and,
therefore, the average lag time of 4 years was modeled. A modeled EL of
3 years could represent a reduction from 5 years to 3 years in active
areas.
Retain the baseline NMOC emission threshold (50 Mg/yr
NMOC) but reduce the EL time from an average of 4 to 2 years for
landfills that closed after 2014. A modeled EL of 2 years could
represent a requirement for all landfills to expand their system within
two years.
For each scenario, we estimated the incremental net annualized
costs of each regulatory option in 2023 relative to a baseline of the
current NESHAP requirements. The costs incorporate the annualized
capital costs to install the GCCS, operation and maintenance costs for
the GCCS, and costs for monthly wellhead monitoring and continuous
combustor monitoring. The costs have been offset by the revenue
anticipated from electricity sales for any landfills that would likely
operate cost-effective energy recover projects. Table 4 of this
preamble shows the incremental cost effectiveness of 14 different HAP
compounds if requiring earlier gas collection as well as the
incremental HAP cost effectivness of total HAP, inclusive of 47
different HAP. Of these 14 HAP, toluene, ethyl benzene,
dichloromethane, hexane, and xylenes are five of the most prevalent
(HAP) in LFG, while the remaining nine HAP, although less prevalent,
are driving our estimates of health risks. The LFG emissions vary each
year because the emissions profile follows a first-order decay equation
pattern over time, as a landfill accepts additional waste.
Additionally, the number of landfills controlling in any given year and
the site-specific collection efficiency of the controlling landfills
varies given the GCCS installation and expansion lag times. The EPA
selected the year 2023 to quantify the impacts because it is 3 years
after the final MSW Landfill NESHAP amendments are expected to be
finalized, which is the maximum time allowable under the General
Provisions of part 63.
[[Page 36688]]
Table 4--Cost Effectiveness of Earlier Gas Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost effectiveness ($100,000 per Mg HAP), year
2023
-----------------------------------------------
Compound Reduce from 50
Mg/yr to 34 Mg/ Reduce EL from Reduce EL from
yr 4 to 2 years 4 to 3 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toluene......................................................... 6.75 5.38 6.36
Hexane.......................................................... 11.48 9.15 10.82
Xylenes (Mixture of o, m, and p Isomers)........................ 14.28 11.38 13.46
Ethyl Benzene................................................... 37.10 29.55 34.96
Methylene Chloride.............................................. 37.84 30.14 35.66
1,4-Dichlorobenzene............................................. 119 94.56 112
Benzene......................................................... 122 97.36 115
Trichloroethylene............................................... 160 128 151
Vinyl Chloride.................................................. 215 171 202
Ethylene Dichloride............................................. 785 625 739
1,1,2-Trichloroethane........................................... 1,022 814 963
Naphthalene..................................................... 1,183 943 1,115
1,3-Butadiene................................................... 1,695 1,350 1,597
Ethylene Dibromide.............................................. 10,534 8,392 9,927
-----------------------------------------------
Total HAP \1\............................................... 2.07 1.64 1.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total HAP includes 47 of the 48 HAP based on the Updated MSW Landfill Emission Factors for RTR Risk Modeling
in 2018. No reductions were estimated for mercury as a result of earlier gas collection. Factors are available
at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/updated-msw-landfill-emission-factors-rtr-risk-modeling modeling.
Considering the high costs per ton of HAP reduced, we did not
consider these control options to be cost effective for further
reducing HAP emissions from MSW landfills. With respect to the non-air
environmental impacts, the options for earlier gas collection may
result in additional LFG becoming available for LFG energy production.
Considering these costs, we concluded that requiring additional
collection of landfill gas is not warranted pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
3. Increased HAP Destruction
The NESHAP currently provides three options for controlling HAP
from the collected landfill gas:
An open flare that meets specified design and operating
requirements;
A control device that reduces NMOC by 98 weight-percent or
20 ppmv NMOC as hexane adjusted to 3-percent oxygen; or
A treatment system that processes the collected gas for
subsequent sale or use.
Another means of reducing HAP is to require increased destruction
of HAP in the collected gas. Our technology review identified three
potential methods: enclosed flares, thermal oxidation, and increased
use of certain energy recovery technologies for beneficial use of
landfill gas.
Enclosed flares. An open flare meeting the NESHAP design and
operating requirements can achieve approximately 98-percent organic HAP
reduction from landfill gas. Note that in this proposed action, flares
must be designed and operated in accordance with 40 CFR 63.11, which is
equivalent to 40 CFR 60.18 as referenced by the MSW Landfills NSPS (40
CFR part 60, subparts WWW and XXX). About 17 percent of landfills
report using an enclosed flare. The achievable destruction efficiency
varies between 99.5 and 99.9 percent depending on local regulations for
emissions of other pollutants (oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide
(CO)) and how the flare is operated.\24\ \25\ The HAP-specific
destruction efficiencies were not reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ LFG Technologies Brochure. http://lfgtech.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/low-emissions-brochure.pdf.
\25\ John Zink. https://www.johnzinkhamworthy.com/products-applications/landfill-biogas/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the technical feasibility of an enclosed flare for landfills
is widely demonstrated, an enclosed flare is more expensive and, for
landfill gas, is more complex to operate. As a result, the capital and
operating cost of an enclosed flare is estimated at about 1.5 to 2
times greater. Open flares provide greater operational flexibility for
handling large variations in flow rate and British thermal units (Btu)
content, managing certain trace gas constituents, and serving as a
backup for landfills with energy recovery projects. We estimate that to
require landfills to replace all open flares with enclosed flares would
reduce emissions by between 630 to 800 Mg/yr NMOC in 2023. There is a
significant range in these estimates depending on the destruction
efficiency. Also, because many landfills already employ at least one
enclosed flare or energy recovery project, it is unknown how many
conversions would actually occur. Table 5 shows the cost for converting
to enclosed flares. The costs are estimated for the same 14 HAP, which
represent the five most prevalent HAP and the nine HAP driving health
risk and takes into consideration the variations in flare peformance
and flare cost. The table also shows incremental HAP cost effectivness
of total HAP, inclusive of 47 different HAP. With respect to the non-
air environmental impacts, the options for requiring conversion to
enclosed flares could negatively impact the number of LFG energy
projects, because open flares tend to serve as back-up destruction
devices at landfills with energy projects in place. Additionally,
enclosed flares may require supplemental pilot fuels to operate. We
conclude that the requirement to use enclosed flares is not cost
effective.
[[Page 36689]]
Table 5--Cost Effectiveness of Enclosed Flares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost effectiveness
($100,000 per Mg
HAP), year 2023 \1\
Compound ---------------------
Conversion of open
flares to enclosed
flares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toluene........................................... $5-14
Hexane............................................ 9-23
Xylenes (Mixture of o, m, and p Isomers).......... 11-29
Ethyl Benzene..................................... 30-75
Methylene Chloride................................ 30-77
1,4-Dichlorobenzene............................... 95-240
Benzene........................................... 98-250
Trichloroethylene................................. 130-330
Vinyl Chloride.................................... 170-440
Ethylene Dichloride............................... 630-1,590
1,1,2-Trichloroethane............................. 820-2,070
Naphthalene....................................... 950-2,400
1,3-Butadiene..................................... 1,360-3,440
Ethylene Dibromide................................ 8,430-21,400
---------------------
Total HAP \2\................................. 1.65-4.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum cost effectiveness range represents a cost factor
increase of 1.5 compared to an open flare and an assumed HAP
destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent. The maximum of the cost
effectiveness range represents a cost factor increase of 2 compared to
an open flare and an assumed HAP destruction efficiency of 99.5
percent.
\2\ Total HAP includes 47 of the 48 HAP based on the Updated MSW
Landfill Emission Factors for RTR Risk Modeling in 2018. No reductions
were estimated for mercury as a result of earlier gas collection.
Factors are available at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/updated-msw-landfill-emission-factors-rtr-risk-modeling.
Thermal oxidizers. The technical feasibility of installing thermal
oxidizers appears to be limited to landfills that employ an energy
project with gas purification equipment or other gas treatment
equipment that involves a tail gas. Flares are better equipped than
thermal oxidizers to manage the large fluctuations in flow rates that
can occur at landfills where the primary control device is not
associated with an energy recovery project. Our technical review
concludes that thermal oxidizers have not been commercially
demonstrated to be technologically feasible as an alternative for the
destruction of landfill gas at all landfills.
Energy recovery devices. Some types of energy recovery projects can
achieve destructions higher than the 98-percent reduction or 20 ppmv
NMOC as required by the NESHAP. About 47 percent of landfills that have
GCCS installed use some form of energy recovery system. Energy recovery
systems that are capable of additional HAP control are gas turbines
(including microturbines) to combust landfill gas to produce
electricity and gas purification systems to produce renewable natural
gas for pipeline injection or direct sale.
The technical feasibility of the landfill gas cleaning that is
required to implement any energy recovery project must be assessed by
in-depth engineering analysis of the site-specific conditions at each
individual landfill. The economic feasibility depends on the available
flow rate for the extracted landfill gas over the expected lifetime of
the project; landfill gas quality; and physical and market access to
either the electrical grid, a natural gas pipeline, end-users with a
consistent energy demand, or an alternative fueling station (i.e.,
compressed natural gas or liquid natural gas) with an adequate market
to consume the landfill gas-derived vehicle fuel. Research has not
identified specific objective criteria for stipulating when a specific
energy recovery system is economically feasible for landfill gas.
Accordingly, we conclude that requiring specific energy recovery
devices for landfill gas is not technologically feasible or cost
effective given that it is highly dependent on engineering analyses of
site-specific conditions.
We request comment on the technologies and practices considered for
this technology review as well as the basis for estimating the cost
effectivness of those technologies at MSW landfills.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed decisions resulting from the RTR
described above, we are proposing revisions to the MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) that promote consistency between MSW
landfills regulations under CAA sections 111 and 112. We are also
proposing changes to the wellhead temperature operating standards, and
associated monitoring, corrective action, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for temperature. We are proposing to adjust
provisions for GCCS removal to provide additional flexibility for
landfill owners and operators. In addition, we are proposing updates to
SSM requirements and electronic reporting requirements.
1. Overall Rule Reorganization
We are proposing to streamline the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart AAAA) by incorporating the landfill gas control,
operational standards, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting rule
requirements (i.e., the major compliance provisions) from the NSPS
program directly into the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA), thus, minimizting cross referencing to another subpart. While
the original MSW Landfills NESHAP references the 1996 MSW Landfills
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW), updated requirements from the 2016
MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) are incorporated where
appropriate. These include sections for GCCS installation and removal
(40 CFR 63.1957), GCCS operational standards (40 CFR 63.1958), NMOC
calculation procedures (40 CFR 63.1959), compliance provisions (40 CFR
63.1960), monitoring (40 CFR 63.1961), specifications for active
collection systems (40 CFR 63.1962), reporting (40
[[Page 36690]]
CFR 63.1981), and recordkeeping (40 CFR 63.1983). These changes
modernized and streamlined the original NSPS. An MSW landfill would
have up to 18 months after publication of the final rule to comply with
these reorganized provisions. Before this time, landfills would comply
with the provisions in the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW), which continue to be cross referenced in the short term.
Incorporating these provisions consolidates requirements between the
MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and XXX) and the MSW
Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) and is expected to
reduce confusion because many landfills are subject to an NSPS and the
NESHAP.
To help distinguish the applicability of the two MSW Landfills
NSPS, the EPA proposes to revise the title of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW, to identify the subpart's applicability dates. Specifically, the
revised title for 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW would read, ``Standards
of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills that Commenced
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification on or after May 30, 1991,
but before July 18, 2014.'' The EPA is making a similar change to 40
CFR part 60, subpart WWW at 40 CFR 60.750(a) to say that the provisions
of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW apply to each MSW landfill that
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or after May
30, 1991, but before July 18, 2014.
To enhance consistency between the regulations and streamline
compliance, we are also proposing minor edits to the MSW Landfills NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and the EG (40 CFR part 60, subpaft Cf)
that would allow MSW landfills affected by the MSW Landfills NSPS and
EG to demonstrate compliance with the ``major compliance provisions''
of the MSW Landfills NESHAP (GCCS operational standards at 40 CFR
63.1958, compliance provisions at 40 CFR 63.1960, and monitoring at 40
CFR 63.1961) in lieu of NSPS and EG.
With the incorporation of the major compliance provisions from the
MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX), we are, thus,
incorporating corresponding revisions from the MSW Landfills NSPS (40
CFR part 60, subpart XXX) that were finalized in 2016, including
removing the requirement to monitor and take corrective action for
oxygen and nitrogen monitoring at the wellhead, refining the procedures
for taking corrective action (40 CFR 63.1960), and adding flexibility
for when to cap, remove, or decommission the GCCS (40 CFR 63.1957(b)).
Revisions for consistency with the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart XXX) also include other conforming changes that were finalized
in 2016, such as allowing the use of portable gas composition analyzers
to monitor the oxygen level at a wellhead (40 CFR 63.1961(a)), the
requirement to report more precise locational data for each surface
emissions exceedance (40 CFR 63.1961(f)), changes to the procedure for
submitting a design plan (40 CFR 63.1981(d)), and changes to
definitions (40 CFR 63.1990). These are described below and in the
preamble to the final MSW Landfills NSPS (81 FR 59332, August 29,
2016).
To further enhance consistency between the MSW landfills
regulations, we are adopting in the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAA) the same requirements for SSM that the MSW Landfills
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) adopted (40 CFR 63.1930(b)).
Consistent with other CAA regulations, we are proposing additional
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart AAAA) in order to ensure that they are consistent with
the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), in
which the Court vacated provisions that exempted sources from the
requirement to comply with applicable CAA section 112 emission
standards during periods of SSM. We are also adding electronic
reporting (40 CFR 63.1981(l)).
We request comment on this re-organization of the MSW Landfills
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) structure to create a more
uniform set of standards for all affected landfills. The EPA
specifically requests comments from landfill owners and operators, as
well as state regulatory agencies, on whether reorganization of the MSW
Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) and amendments to NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf)
clarifies compliance for sources affected by both the MSW Landfills
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) and the NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart XXX) or EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf).
2. Operational Standards for Gas Collection Systems
To ensure proper operation of the gas collection system, the
current MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) requires
wellhead monitoring of the collected landfill gas and establishes
standards at the wellhead for negative pressure, temperature, and
concentration of either nitrogen or oxygen, as described in the MSW
Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW). If an operational limit
is exceeded, then corrective action is required to return the measured
parameter to the required level. Consistent with the MSW Landfills NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf), we
are proposing to eliminate the operational standard and the
corresponding corrective action for nitrogen and oxygen concentration,
because we concluded that nitrogen and oxygen concentration by itself
is not an effective indicator of proper landfill gas system operation.
This conclusion is explained in the preamble to the 2016 NSPS (81 FR
59332, August 29, 2016). In addition, we propose to further amend the
MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) by increasing the
operational standard for temperature at wellheads from 131 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to 145 [deg]F (40 CFR 63.1958(c)). The MSW
Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) maintains the existing
operational standards for negative pressure (40 CFR 63.1958(b)). The
proposed changes to eliminate the nitrogen and oxygen operating
standard and increase the wellhead temperature operating standard would
reduce the burden on regulated entities and delegated state, local, and
tribal agencies addressing inquiries related to operating standards in
several ways. First, this proposed change removes the requirement to
take corrective action for nitrogen and oxygen limits. Second, this
change would reduce the number of requests and burden associated with
submitting and reviewing the requests for higher operating values for
oxygen and nitrogen. Third, the proposed increase in temperature
operating limit is expected to reduce the number of requests for higher
operating values. Similarly, the higher temperature standard is
expected to reduce the frequency of corrective action for exceeding the
temperature limit. In addition to reducing the burden associated with
these wellhead operating standards, these changes are expected to
promote greater flexibility and autonomy to landfill owners and
operators with regards to wellhead operations. For example, landfill
owners or operators may employ cover practices or GCCS best management
practices that are suitable for their sites and GCCS designs, thereby
allowing them to collect more LFG and reduce emissions without the risk
of exceeding a wellhead operating parameter.
[[Page 36691]]
The purpose of the wellhead monitoring is to prevent fires and
avoid conditions that inhibit anaerobic decomposition of the waste. In
revising the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf), the EPA received substantial comments that operation at a
specific fixed level of nitrogen and oxygen concentration does not
achieve the intended objectives and can become a barrier that prevents
proactive landfill gas collection practices, such as connecting the gas
collection system to the leachate collection system or installing early
gas collectors (81 FR 59346 and 81 FR 59292, August 29, 2016). Although
landfill owners or operators are not required to maintain specific
nitrogen and oxygen operating limits, we propose to retain the
requirement to monitor nitrogen and oxygen and maintain records at the
wellhead because this parameter is an important factor for the landfill
operator to evaluate along with other factors to determine how well the
landfill is being operated to effectively capture landfill gas, promote
efficient anaerobic decomposition, and prevent fires (40 CFR
63.1961(a)). The landfill owner or operator must make these records
available to the Administrator (EPA Administrator or administrator of a
state air pollution control agency or his or her designee) upon request
(40 CFR 63.1983(i)).
Regarding temperature, the EPA did not increase the operating
standard in the 2016 MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX)
and EG (81 FR 59276, August 29, 2016). Although several commenters
supported removing the temperature parameters, other commenters were
concerned with fire risks if the parameter was removed. At the time,
the EPA consulted with EPA Regions about approaches taken in consent
decrees and other enforcement actions involving elevated temperature
values. Since the 2016 revisions to the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part
60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf), the EPA has
reviewed several consent decrees in additional
detail.26 27 28 These consent decrees have temperature
operating limits ranging between 131 [deg]F to 185 [deg]F. With higher
temperatures come several addditional monitoring requirements. In
addition, higher operating value guidance from Ohio EPA indicated that
Ohio EPA generally will concur with requests for operating limits up to
150 [deg]F, as long as additional data are made available.\29\ The EPA
has also reviewed data on requests for higher temperature operating
values in EPA Region 5. Based on these data, 64 percent of all higher
operating value (HOV) requests were at 145 [deg]F or less and 95
percent of requests were below 150 [deg]F.\30\ Additionally, a Solid
Waste Assosciation of North America (SWANA) manual of practice for LFG
GCCS indicates that polyvinyl chloride piping begins to fail at 145
[deg]F and fails at 165 [deg]F, temperatures above 140 [deg]F could
indicate aerobic conditions, and landfill gas temperature over 135
[deg]F indicates a possible subsurface oxidation event (SOE). Optimal
range for mesophilic bacteria is 77-104 [deg]F, and for thermophilic
bacteria is 131-149 [deg]F (see page 9-8).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ United States v. Forward, Inc., Consent Decree, Case No.
2:11-cv-00590 EFB (E.D.Cal. May 2, 2012).
\27\ United States of America v. County of Maui, Consent Decree,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00571-LEK-RLP (D.Haw. December 27, 2012).
\28\ Waimanalo: United States of America v. Waste Management of
Hawaii, Inc., and City and County of Honolulu, Consent Decree, Case
No. 1:13 cv-00095 (D.Haw. April 18, 2013).
\29\ Ohio EPA. Guidance Document for Higher Operating Value
Demonstrations. http://web.epa.state.oh.us/eBusinessCenter/Agency/DAPC/HOV%20Demonstration.doc.
\30\ See docketed memorandum, Analysis of HOV Requests for
Wellhead Temperature.
\31\ SWANA/National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Landfill
Gas Operation and Maintenance Manual of Practice. 1997. NREL/SR-430-
23070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the review of these additional data, the EPA is proposing
to increase the temperature operating standard 14 [deg]F, from 131
[deg]F to 145 [deg]F (40 CFR 63.1958(c)). We propose to require the
landfill owner or operator to report any temperature readings that
exceed 145 [deg]F in semi-annual reports and maintain records of all
temperature monitoring at the wellhead because this parameter is an
important factor for the landfill operator to evaluate along with other
factors to determine how well the landfill is being operated to
effectively capture landfill gas, promote efficient anaerobic
decomposition, and prevent fires. The landfill owner or operator must
make these records available to the Administrator (EPA Administrator or
administrator of a state air pollution control agency or his or her
designee) upon request (40 CFR 63.1983(i)).
We request comment on the removal of oxygen and nitrogen wellhead
operating standards and increased temperature operating standard.
3. Enhanced Monitoring and Reporting for Elevated Wellhead Temperature
Given previous concerns with fire risks from elevated temperatures,
and the fact that parameters other than temperature can be indicators
of SOE, and based on review of the aforementioned consent decrees and
guidance materials, the EPA is also proposing enhanced wellhead
monitoring and visual inspections for SOE (40 CFR 63.1961(a)), and in
some cases more frequent reporting, for any landfill with wellhead
temperature exceeding 145 [deg]F. These requirements would apply to all
wells with an exceedance, unless a higher operating value has been
approved, in which case the stipulations of the approved HOV applies
(40 CFR 63.1961(a)). The EPA is proposing to require weekly
observations for SOE, as well as weekly monitoring of CO, oxygen, and
methane. Temperature readings will also be required weekly at the
wellhead and at downwell increments for every 10 vertical feet in the
well (40 CFR 63.1961(a)).
The EPA is proposing to require an independent laboratory analysis
of each CO measurement, using EPA Method 10 (40 CFR
63.1961(a)(5)(vi)(A)). The EPA is proposing to monitor methane with a
methane meter using EPA Method 3C or EPA Method 18 or a portable gas
composition analyzer provided that the analyzer is calibrated and the
analyzer meets all quality assurance and quality control requirements
for EPA Method 3C or EPA Method 18 (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)). The EPA is
proposing downwell temperature measurements with either a removable
thermotet or temporary or permanat thermocouples installed in the well.
All of these data will be required to be submitted in the semi-annual
report and maintained as records (40 CFR 63.1981(h)). Each report will
also include a trend analysis of the weekly monitoring results over
time, for each well. Enhanced monitoring will begin for 7 days and
continue until the measured wellhead operating temperature is 145
[deg]F or less, or the higher operating value is approved, whichever
comes first.
For landfills that have any temperature reading of 170 [deg]F or
above at either the wellhead or on any of the downwell measurements,
and a CO reading of 1,500 ppmv or above, a 24-hour electronic report
will be required to notify the delegated agency about the well.
We request comment on the enhanced monitoring and reporting
requirements for elevated temperatures.
4. Corrective Action
Under the current MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA), if a landfill exceeds a wellhead operating parameter, the
landfill owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 5
days of the measurement as described in the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR
part 60, subpart
[[Page 36692]]
WWW). If the exceedance cannot be corrected within 15 days, the
landfill owner or operator must prepare to expand the GCCS within 120
days or obtain approval by the EPA or the delegated state agency for an
alternative operating limit. Commenters on the revised NSPS (40 CFR
part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf) that were
proposed in 2015 stated that exceedances of elevated nitrogen and
oxygen concentration are often not solved by expanding the gas
collection system, especially in older areas of the landfill.
Commenters also stated that wellhead corrective action often requires
site-specific and highly technical solutions other than expanding a
collection system. The commenters also stated that despite the 1998
amendments to the MSW Landfills NSPS (63 FR 32748, June 16, 1998),
which clarified procedures for landfill owners or operators to submit
an alternative timeline for correcting exceedances, there is
inconsistency in how delegated state and local agencies are
inconsistently interpreting when a landfill must expand the GCCS (see
additional discussion at 81 FR 59332, August 29, 2016) or when
landfills must submit requests for alternative timelines to correct
exceedances. Commenters also expressed concern that many requests for
alternative timelines are not approved in a timely manner. Since the
MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) references the
regulatory language for corrective action in the MSW Landfills NSPS (40
CFR part 60, subpart WWW), these same concerns with implementation of
corrective action affect landfills subject to the MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA).
For those reasons, we are proposing to eliminate the requirements
for corrective action for nitrogen and oxygen as we have eliminated the
operating standard for nitrogen and oxygen, as previously discussed. We
are also proposing changes to the corrective action procedures to
address positive pressure and elevated temperature to provide
flexibility to owners or operators in determining the appropriate
remedy, as well as the timeline for implementing the remedy (40 CFR
63.19620(a)). The proposed changes to the timeline and the process for
correcting for positive pressure would make the MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) requirements the same as the current
requirements of the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX)
and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf). Because the MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) is also proposing changes to the
temperature wellhead operating standard, the requirements for
corrective action procedures being proposed are tied to the exceedance
of the 145 [deg]F (instead of 131 [deg]F) standard, otherwise the
proposed changes are consistent with the current requirements of the
MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR part
60, subpart Cf). Under these proposed provisions, corrective action
must be initiated within 5 days of the measured exceedance (40 CFR
63.1960(a)). If the exceedance cannot be corrected within 15 days, then
the owner or operator must conduct a root cause analysis and correct
the exceedance as soon as practicable, but within no later than 60 days
of the measured exceedance. If corrective actions cannot be implemented
within 60 days, then the owner or operator must prepare a corrective
action analysis and an implementation schedule to complete the
corrective actions within 120 days. The root cause analysis and the
corrective action analysis for restoring flow does not have to be
submitted or approved but must be kept on site as a record. If the
exceedance cannot be corrected within 120 days, then within 75 days of
the exceedance the owner or operator must submit the root cause
analysis, corrective action analysis, and the corresponding
implementation timeline to the Administrator for approval.
For the corrective action required to address positive pressure or
elevated temperature, the owner or operator must keep a record of the
root cause analysis conducted, including a description of the
recommended corrective actions; the date for corrective actions already
completed following the positive pressure reading or wellhead
temperature measurement above 145 [deg]F; and for actions not already
completed within 60 days of the initial positive pressure reading or
wellhead temperature measurement above 145 [deg]F, a schedule for
implementation, including proposed commencement and completion dates.
For corrective actions taking longer than 60 days to correct the
exceedance, the owner or operator would also include in the annual
report the root cause analysis, recommended corrective actions, date
corrective actions were completed, and schedule for implementing
corrective actions. The owner or operator must also notify the
Administrator within 75 days. For corrective actions that take longer
than 120 days to correct the exceedance, the owner or operator would
include, in a separate notification submitted to the Administrator for
approval as soon as practicable, but no later than 75 days after the
initial positive pressure reading or wellhead temperature measurement
above 145 [deg]F, the root cause analysis, recommended corrective
actions, date corrective actions taken to date were completed, and
proposed schedule for implementing corrective actions (40 CFR
63.1960(a)).
For any wells that have any temperature reading of 170 [deg]F or
above at either the wellhead or on any of the downwell measurements,
and a CO reading of 1,500 ppmv or above, a shortened period of
corrective action, not to exceed 15 days, is being proposed (40 CFR
63.1960(a)). High temperatures in combination with high levels of CO
are considered a positive indication of an active underground landfill
fire. As such, timely corrective action of such operating conditions is
required to minimize fire risk.
We request comment on the revisions to the corrective action
process.
5. Criteria for Removing GCCS
Consistent with the MSW Landfills NSPS and EG (81 FR 59357), the
EPA is proposing to add flexibility to the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart AAAA) for determining when it is appropriate to cap,
remove, or decommission a portion of the GCCS (40 CFR 63.1957(b)). The
MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) requires three
criteria to be met to remove controls: (1) The landfill is closed, (2)
the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than 50 Mg/yr
on three successive test dates, and (3) the GCCS has operated for at
least 15 years. We are proposing to edit the third criteria to allow
the landfill owner or operator to choose between the 15 years of GCCS
operation, or demonstrate that the GCCS will be unable to operate for
15 years due to declining gas flows. The additional flexibility
recognizes that site-specific conditions such as age of the waste, an
arid climate, or low organic content. The provision allows the owner or
operator to provide data that could be used to demonstrate a GCCS is
unable to operate for 15 years such as supplemental fuel use or LFG
measurements showing methane content lower than what is viable for
combustion in the destruction device.
We request comment on the criteria for removing the GCCS.
6. Definition of Cover Penetration
The MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) requires
owners
[[Page 36693]]
or operators to conduct surface monitoring of methane emissions on a
quarterly basis. The intent of surface monitoring provisions is to
maintain a tight cover that minimizes landfill gas emissions through
the landfill surface. Methane concentration readings must be taken at
specified intervals (distances) and where visual observations, such as
distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover, indicate
elevated concentrations of landfill gas. Since the MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) was finalized, there have been concerns
with inconsistent interpretation and implementation of surface
monitoring requirements. The EPA proposed amendments to the MSW
Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW), which is referenced by
the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA), in September
8, 2006 (71 FR 53277). Those amendments were never finalized. In that
2006 notice, the EPA stated that while the regulatory language gives
distressed vegetation and cracks as an example of a visual indication
that gas may be escaping, this example does not limit the places that
should be monitored by landfill staff or by enforcement agency
inspectors. In the 2016 amendments to the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
XXX) and EG, the EPA reiterated this interpretation (79 FR 41812, July
17, 2014), and to provide clarity, included the phrase ``. . . and all
cover penetrations'' in the regulatory text. The MSW Landfills NSPS (40
CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf) provided
examples of cover penetrations in the preambles to those final rules
(81 FR 59343, 81 FR 59288, August 29, 2016) but the rules did not
define cover penetrations.
To clarify the implementation concerns, we are proposing to add the
phrase, ``. . . at all cover penetrations'' to the regulatory text of
the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1958(d)), consistent with this
phrase in the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and EG
(40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf), and we are also proposing the following
definition to be added to the rule: Cover penetration means a wellhead,
a part of a landfill gas collection or operations system, and/or any
other object that completely passes through the landfill cover. The
landfill cover includes that portion which covers the waste, as well as
the portion which borders the waste extended to the point where it is
sealed with the landfill liner or the surrounding land mass. Examples
of what is not a penetration for purposes of this subpart include but
are not limited to: Survey stakes, fencing including litter fences,
flags, signs, utility posts, and trees so long as these items do not
pass through the landfill cover.
We request comment on the proposed definition and specific examples
of what has and has not historically been interpreted to be a cover
penetration by both regulatory agencies and affected sources.
7. Electronic Reporting
The EPA proposes to require owners or operators of new or modified
landfills to submit electronic copies of certain required performance
test reports, NMOC emission rate reports, and semi-annual reports and
bioreactor 40-percent moisture reports through the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI) (40 CFR 63.1981(l)). Owners or operators are allowed
to maintain electronic copies of the records in lieu of hardcopies to
satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. The requirement to submit
performance test data electronically to the EPA applies to those
performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by
the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The proposed rule requires that
performance test results collected using test methods that are
supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the ERT website: (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test be submitted in the format generated
through the use of the ERT and that other performance test results be
submitted in portable document format (PDF) using the attachment module
of the ERT. When the EPA adds new methods to the ERT, a notice will be
sent out through the Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions
Factors (CHIEF) Listserv (https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/emissionsinventory-listservs) and a notice of availability will be
added to the ERT website. You are encouraged to check the ERT website
regularly for up-to-date information on methods supported by the ERT.
The EPA is requiring owners and operators of MSW landfill
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance
test reports, periodic reports, annual reports through the EPA's CDX
using the CEDRI.
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. In 40 CFR
63.1981(n), the EPA addresses the situation where an extension may be
warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI that precludes an
owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports. In 40 CFR 63.1981(o), the EPA addresses the situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule. Examples of such events are
acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or
safety hazards beyond the control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
8. Changes to the SSM Provisions
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's
[[Page 36694]]
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
We are proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption, which is contained
at 40 CFR 63.1960 of subpart AAAA. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are
also proposing several revisions to Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part
63--Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions to Subpart AAAA, as
explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement to
develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise
certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM
exemption.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has proposed alternate standards for those periods.
a. Periods of SSM
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA (551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008)), the EPA is proposing that standards in CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA, apply at all times. The 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions, which
define SSM, were written for typical industrial or manufacturing
sources and associated processes. Many of these sources and processes
may, at times, be shut down entirely for clean-out, maintenance, or
repairs, and then restarted. Applying the standards at all times,
including periods of startup and shutdown, is intended to minimize
excess emissions when the source or process ceases operation or
commences operation, or malfunctions. Landfill emissions, however, are
produced by a continuous biological process that cannot be stopped or
restarted. For landfills, the primary SSM concern is with operation of
the landfill GCCS and associated monitoring equipment, not with the
startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the entire source. Thus, SSM
provisions in the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA)
focus on the gas collection system, gas control system, and gas
treatment system, which is part of the emission control system.
b. Periods of Malfunction
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, a malfunction is an infrequent and not reasonably
preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring
equipment (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section 112,
emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the
level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of
sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that
directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level
``achieved'' by the best performing sources when setting emission
standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``
`says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be
calculated.' '' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d
1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d at
661). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider
malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat
a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corporation, accounting for
malfunctions in setting numerical or work practice emission standards
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might
occur. The Court stated, ``As for work-practice standards, the EPA
would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the
wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion
to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be
hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances.'' 830
F.3d at 608. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning
is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167
F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted) (``The EPA
typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering
necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's
decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information,
rather than to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'
''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir.
1978) (internal citation omitted) (``In the nature of things, no
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions
at any other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution
control device with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA
section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions
is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation
of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
[[Page 36695]]
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunctions that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers (80
FR 75178, 75211-75214, December 1, 2015). The EPA can consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. See 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
c. Proposed Work Practice for SSM Events
Before [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], by reference to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW, the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) exempts
periods of SSM that do not exceed 5 days for the collection system or 1
hour for the treatment or control device. See 40 CFR 60.755(e).
However, this exclusion is inconsistent with the Sierra Club 2008
decision, which ruled that emission standards apply at all times.
Accordingly, we are proposing that the provisions of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAA, apply at all times after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. We also propose an
additional work practice requirement that would apply whenever the
collection and control system is not operating. The work practice
requirement is proposed at 40 CFR 63.1958(e). To prevent free venting
of landfill gas to the atmosphere when the collection or control system
is not operating for any reason, the gas mover system must be shut down
and all valves in the collection and control system contributing to
venting of gas to the atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour. The
additional work practice standard also requires all repairs to the GCCS
proceed expeditiously so that the amount of downtime is minimized. This
standard reflects the fact that many or most repairs to restore the
GCCS to operation can be completed in 1 or 2 days, but some may require
longer periods of time to complete. Regardless of the quantity of work
necessary to repair the system, the source should proceed promptly to
address GCCS downtime.
The standard requires that the GCCS be in operation at all times.
The additional work practice standard to shut down the gas mover
equipment and all valves contributing to venting of gas to the
atmosphere and to make all repairs to the GCCS exeditiously is an
additional requirement that applies while the control system is not
operating. Compliance with the work practice requirement does not
constitute compliance with the applicable MSW Landfills NESHAP
standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. The operating standards of
40 CFR 63.1958, which require operation of the gas collection system
vented to a control system that complies with the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 63.1957, apply at all times after [DATE 18
MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. Compliance with the work practice requirement is necessary,
but not in all cases sufficient, to demonstrate compliance with the
general duty in 40 CFR 63.1955(c) to minimize emissions at all times.
The EPA will determine whether a landfill owner/opertor has complied
with the general duty to minimize emissions at all times based on
compliance with the work practice requirements, actions taken to
minimize the duration of the period of SSM when the GCCS is not
operating under normal conditions, and other relevant case-specific
factors.
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the Federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
d. Revisions to the 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions
We are proposing revisions to Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63 to
specify the sections of the General Provisions that apply and those
that do not apply to the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA). We also are proposing that certain elements of the 40 CFR part
63 General Provisions (subpart A) that are inconsistent with the Sierra
Club 2008 decision pertaining to SSM do not apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. We
propose that the provisions that the emission standards apply at all
times, including the SSM work practice requirements and the elimination
of the SSM plan and associated recordkeeping and reporting, would
become effective 18 months AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION of the rule
revision. The lag time is necessary to allow sufficient time for
landfill owners and operators to plan and implement procedures for
complying with the revised SSM provisions. For periods of SSM, the SSM
plan and associated requriements will continue to apply until such time
as these proposed rule changes take effect. The paragraphs below in
this section explain the proposed changes to Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAA.
40 CFR 63.1956(e) General duty. We are proposing to specify in the
General Provisions table (Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) that 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) does not apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead
to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.1955(c) that reflects
the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference
to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty
[[Page 36696]]
entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations,
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general
duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR
63.1955(c) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to specify in the General Provisions table
(Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) does
not apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements
that are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.1956(e).
SSM plan. We are proposing to specify in the General Provisions
table (Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) that paragraphs 40 CFR
63.6(e)(3)(i) through (ix) do not apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Generally,
these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. The
EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected
units will be subject to an emission standard during such events. The
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
Compliance with Standards. We are proposing to specify in the
General Provisions table (Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) that 40
CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) do not apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The current
language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity
standards during periods of SSM, and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources
from opacity standards. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club v.
EPA, vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held that
the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing to revise
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
40 CFR 63.1959 Performance testing. We are proposing to add a
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.1959(f). The performance
testing requirements of 40 CFR 63.7 of the General Provisions do not
apply for this subpart after [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The performance
testing requirements that we are proposing to add differ from the
General Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects.
The proposed regulatory text does not allow performance testing during
startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests
conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during
malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not
representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to
add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation. We are proposing that, upon
request, the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such
records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the
performance test.''
40 CFR 63.1983 Recordkeeping. We are proposing to specify in the
General Provisions table (Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) entry for
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) does not apply after
[DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during startup and shutdown. We are instead proposing to
add recordkeeping requirements for startup and shutdown to 40 CFR
63.1983. Because 40 CFR 63.1958(e) specifies a different standard for
periods when the collection and control system is not operating under
normal conditions (which would include periods of startup, shutdown,
and maintenance or repair), it will be important to know when such
startup and shutdown periods begin and end in order to determine
compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, the EPA is proposing to
add language to 40 CFR 63.1983(c)(6) requiring that a landfill owner or
operator must report the date, time, and duration of each startup and
shutdown period.
We are proposing to specify in the General Provisions table (Table
1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) does not
apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing
to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.1983(c)(6). The regulatory text
we are proposing differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in
that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a
record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process,
air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing
that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable
standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and
duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also
proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.1983(c)(7), a requirement that sources
keep records that include a list of the affected equipment and actions
taken to minimize emissions. The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow the EPA to determine how the source met
the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has failed to
meet an applicable standard.
After [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], we will no longer require owners or operators to
determine whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent
with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The
proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
We are proposing to specify in the General Provisions table (Table
1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) does not
apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.1983.
We are proposing to specify in the General Provisions table (Table
1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) that 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) does not apply
after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
[[Page 36697]]
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. When applicable,
the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM
events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan.
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required.
We are proposing to specify in the General Provisions table (Table
1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c) to specify that
40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) does not apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. When applicable,
the provision allows an owner or operator to use the affected source's
SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of
the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA is proposing
to eliminate this requirement because SSM plans would no longer be
required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any
useful purpose for affected units.
40 CFR 63.1981 Reporting. We are proposing to specify in the
General Provisions table (Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) that 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) does not apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Section
63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements for startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General Provisions
reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.1981. The replacement language differs from
the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates periodic SSM
reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language that
requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any time
to report the information concerning such events in the annual report
already required under this rule. We are proposing that the report must
contain the number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events
(including unknown cause, if applicable), and a list of the affected
equipment. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure that there
is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow the EPA to
determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable standard,
and to provide data that may document how the source met the general
duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an applicable
standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The
proposed amendments, therefore, eliminate this reporting requirement,
which is contained in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3). This reporting is no longer
necessary because malfunction events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
We are proposing to specify in the General Provisions table (Table
1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) to specify
that 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) does not apply after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions when a source fails to meet an applicable standard but
does not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and
operators to report when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction were not consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would
no longer be required.
We request comments on the proposed approach for updating the SSM
provisions in the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA)
to be consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F.3d 1019. In addition, we specifically request comment on the
following topics:
Periods of time when GCCS downtime is unavoidable,
mandatory, necessary for safety, and/or necessary to minimize
emissions.
Practices or techniques that can be delpoyed to avoid or
reduce GCCS downtime to a minimum during periods of repairs. These may
include predictive and preventative maintentance, redundancy, and
correction measures.
The work practice requiring sources to effectuate repairs
to the GCCS in a manner that the shutdown timeframe is kept to a
minimum.
9. Other Clarifications and Changes To Conform With the MSW Landfills
NSPS
Changes to the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) in
2016 were designed to refine requirements and to simplify and
streamline implementation of the rule. With incorporation of compliance
provisions from the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX)
into the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA), we are
likewise including the following provisions:
Portable gas analyzers. We are allowing the use of portable gas
composition analyzers to monitor the oxygen level at a wellhead (40 CFR
63.1961(a)). This change allows owners or operators to employ proven,
reliable devices that are commonly used in practice to measure wellhead
parameters.
More precise location data. We are proposing to require owners and
operators to report more precise locational data for each surface
emissions exceedance (40 CFR 63.1961(f)). This change will provide a
more robust and long-term record of GCCS performance. In addition, more
precise locational data will help ensure that the owner or operator can
easily locate and correct breaches in the landfill cover, while helping
the EPA and states enforce the rule.
Update and approval of design plan. We are proposing to refine the
criteria for updating a design plan, consistent with the MSW Landfills
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX). Landfill owners or operators must
submit an updated design plan for approval based on the following
criteria: (1) Within 90 days of expanding operations to an area not
covered by the previously approved design plan; and (2) before
installing or expanding the gas collection system in a way that is not
consistent to the previous design plan (40 CFR 63.1981(e)). These
changes help ensure that the as-built GCCS is consistent with the
design plan.
Uses of treated landfill gas. Consistent with the MSW Landfills
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX), we are proposing to clarify that
the use of treated landfill gas is not limited to use as a fuel for a
stationary combustion device, but also includes other uses such as the
production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline
injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process
(40 CFR 63.1959(b)). This revision allows other beneficial uses of
landfill gas that are being implemented.
Control system and collection and control system. We propose to
standardize the terms ``control system'' and ``collection and control
system'' throughout the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA) in order to use consistent terminology throughout the regulatory
text.
Exemption. We propose to exempt owners/operators of boilers and
process heaters with design capacities of 44 megawatts or greater from
the requirement to conduct an initial performance test because large
boilers
[[Page 36698]]
and process heaters consistently achieve the required level of control
(67 FR 36478, May 23, 2002).
Temperature monitoring. We propose to remove the term
``combustion'' from the requirement to monitor temperature of enclosed
combustors. For some enclosed combustors, it is not possible to monitor
temperature inside the combustion chamber to determine combustion
temperature. The proposed amendment clarifies that the ``combustion''
temperature does not have to be monitored. Temperature could be
monitored at another location, as long as the monitored temperature
relates to proper operation of the enclosed combustor (71 FR 53276,
September 8, 2006).
Definitions. We refined multiple definitions in the MSW Landfills
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and are pulling those definitions
forward into the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) to
ensure consistency in terms across these Federal landfills regulations
(40 CFR 63.1990). Revised definitions include Treated Landfill Gas,
Treatment System and Treatment System Monitoring, Modification,
Household waste, and Segregated Yard Waste.
We request comments on these changes to the regulatory text of MSW
Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX).
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that facilities may have up to 18 months after
the effective date of the final rule to begin complying with the final
rule. Before this date, facilities have the option to comply with the
rule as it was finalized in 2003. This allowance is being made
considering that the rule text has been significantly re-organized,
introduces new electronic reporting requirements, and makes other
adjustments to certain operating standards and associated
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements. Although these
requirements are very simlar to the requirements finalized in the MSW
Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX), the EPA recognizes that
not all MSW landfills have become subject to the MSW Landfills NSPS (40
CFR part 60, subpart XXX). The EPA requests comment on this timeframe.
The EPA recognizes that many owners and operators have already
submitted reports under different subparts. For example, most MSW
landfills have already submitted an initial NMOC emission rate report.
If an MSW landfill owner or operator has previously submitted an
initial NMOC emission rate report under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40
CFR part 60, subpart XXX; or 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG (the MSW
Landfills Federal Plan) or an EPA approved and effective state plan or
tribal plan that implements either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, or 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cf, then that submission constitutes compliance
with the initial NMOC emission rate report in the MSW Landfills NESHAP
and you do not need to re-submit the report. However, in the first
semi-annual report required in this rule, you must include a statement
certifying prior submission of the report and the date of that
submittal.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
We anticipate that approximately 738 active or closed MSW landfills
in the United States and territories will be affected by these proposed
amendments in the year 2023. This number is based on all landfills that
accepted waste after November 8, 1987, that have a design capacity of
at least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\. In addition, this number
relects the subset of landfills meeting these two criteria with modeled
emission estimates of 50 Mg/yr NMOC or greater that have installed
controls on or before 2023. While the EPA recognizes some uncertainty
regarding which landfills have actually exceeded the emission
threshold, given the allowance of sites to estimate emissions using
Tiers 1, 2, or 3, and the site-specific nature of NMOC concentrations,
the number of landfills that are co-located major sources and,
therefore, also subject to control requirements under this rule is also
unknown. Therefore, 738 is the best estimate of the affected sources.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The proposed amendments are expected to have a minimal impact on
air quality. While these amendments do not require stricter control
requirements or work practice standards on landfills to comply with the
proposed amendments, some landfills may find that the adjustments made
to the oxygen and nitrogen and temperature wellhead operating standards
provide enough operational flexibility to install, expand, and operate
additional voluntary GCCS, which could reduce emissions. The other
proposed revisions that affect testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting will ensure that the GCCS equipment continues to perform as
expected and provide reliable data from each facility to be reported
for compliance.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The EPA has estimated $0 compliance costs for all new and existing
sources affected by this proposal, beyond what is already required
under the existing MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA)
and what is already included in this NESHAP's Information Collection
Request (ICR). Furthermore, landfills that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after July 17, 2014, must comply with
the similar, yet, more stringent requirements of the MSW Landfills NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX). The proposed changes to the operational
standards for wellhead temperature and oxygen and nitrogen are likely
to reduce the number of requests for HOVs, which in turn could decrease
compliance costs. Many of the proposed changes in these amendments
allow the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) to better
align with the requirements of the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart XXX), and simplify compliance, which in turn could reduce
costs. Potential cost savings of these changes are unquantified.
Addtionally, the proposed removal of the requirement to develop an SSM
plan does not result in a cost savings for existing facilities versus
the 2003 NESHAP. However, there would be a cost savings for new or
modified facilities. The latest ICR renewal for the 2003 NESHAP (ICR
Number 1938.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0505) quantifies costs for 13
new or modified landfills per year to preapre an SSM plan. The labor
cost for these 13 landfills is approximately $52,850 per year. In
addition, approximately 5 percent of controlling landfills, or 39
landfills per year, is expected to prepare a notification for a
deviation from the SSM plan at a labor cost of $7,500 per year. Thus,
landfill respondents under the 2003 NESHAP incur costs of approximately
$60,350 per year for SSM plans and deviations. In addition, the ICR
estimates that the EPA or delegated state agencies must review SSM
plans at a labor cost of $5,700 and deviations of SSM reports at a
labor cost of $3,100. Thus, the agency burden associated with SSM is
approximately $8,800 annually. This proposal does not require an SSM
plan, thus, there are cost savings related to the provisions applying
at all times: Approximately $60,350 for landfill respondents and
approximately $8,800 for agency respondents. We request comment on
these potential cost savings due to no longer needing to prepare an SSM
plan. See the docketed memorandum, Cost Impacts of National Emission
Standards
[[Page 36699]]
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills
Risk and Technology Review, for additional discussion about the cost
impacts.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action.
Because there are no costs associated with the current proposal, no
economic impacts are anticipated.
E. What are the benefits?
As stated above in section V.B of this preamble, we were unable to
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with adjustments
made to the oxygen and nitrogen wellhead operating standards, although
this proposed change has the potential to reduce emissions. Any
reduction in HAP emissions would be expected to provide health benefits
in the form of improved air quality and less exposure to potentially
harmful chemicals.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such
data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the
data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more
information on submitting data.
We are also specifically interested in comments related to the
changes we are proposing that are descibed in section IV.D of this
preamble. The respective topics in section IV.D close with details on
the specific information the EPA seeks in comments. From section IV.D
of this preamble, we are requesting comments on overall rule
reorganization; wellhead temperature operating standards, and
associated monitoring, corrective action, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for temperature; and revisions to the GCCS
removal criteria to provide additional flexibility for landfill owners
and operators. In addition, the EPA is soliciting comments on potential
methane emissions measurement methodologies and concerns identified by
stakeholders regarding areas with declinging gas flow, as described in
this section of the preamble. Comments on areas with declining gas flow
will help the EPA determine the extent of the potential issue and, if
necessary, identify potential remedies. The EPA will evaluate all
comments and any new information and, if warranted, will initiate a
subsequent rulemaking to address any issues raised from this
solicitiation of comment.
A. Methane Emissions Measurement Methodologies
Current modeling approaches for estimating landfill emissions,
which rely on the decomposition rate of different waste streams buried
in a landfill, are prone to uncertainties due to inaccuracies in input
data and often unverifiable assumptions. New methane emissions
measurement methodologies are emerging that are anticipated to provide
landfill methane emission rates (mass per unit time) over time, thereby
reducing significantly the uncertainty associated with current modeling
and emission measurements approaches. Two promising examples of new
methane measurement methodologies being used by research groups to
quantify landfill methane emissions are mobile tracer correlation (TC)
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 and discrete area source eddy
covariance (DASEC).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Methodologies for measuring fugitive methane emissions from
landfills--A review; Jacob, M; Kjeldsen, P.; Scheutz, C.,Waste
Management (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.12.047.
\33\ Guidelines for landfill gas emission monitoring using the
tracer gas dispersion method; Scheutz, C.; Kjeldsen, P., Waste
Management 85 (2019): 351-360.
\34\ Validation and error assessment of the mobile tracer gas
dispersion method for measurement of fugitive emissions from other
area sources; Fredenslund, A.M.; Rees-White, T.C.; Beaven, R.P.;
Delre, A.; Finlayson, A.; Helmore, J.; Allen G.; Scheutz, C., Waste
Management, 2019, 83, pp. 68-78.R.; Swan, N.D.; Chanton, J.P. Atmos.
Environ. 2015, 102 (0), 323-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mobile Tracer Correlation
This methodology provides a ``snap-shot in time'' assessment of
whole facility methane emissions using on-site release of atmospheric
tracer gases. It provides a total mass emission rate of methane (or
other gas) per unit of time. An instrumented vehicle driving 1 km to 4
km downwind of the landfill simultaneously measures the emitted
landfill methane plume along with the superimposed tracer gas release.
The landfill methane emission rate is determined through a simple ratio
to the known tracer gas release rate. The technique has been
demonstrated using a variety of tracer gases and instruments by a
number of groups to investigate emissions from landfills and other
sources. The mobile TC approach is under development as a Best
Available Technique measurement reference document under the European
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
[[Page 36700]]
Chang (IPCC), Industrial Emissions Directive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Development of a mobile tracer correlation method for
assessment of air emissions from landfills and other area sources;
Foster-Wittig, T.A.; Thoma, E.D.; Green, R.B.; Hater, G.R.; Swan,
N.D.; Chanton, J.P. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 102 (0), 323-330.
\36\ Quantification of methane emissions from 15 Danish
landfills using the mobile tracer dispersion method; M[oslash]nster,
J.; Samuelsson, J.; Kjeldsen, P.; Scheutz, C. Waste Manage. 2015, 35
(0), 177-186.
\37\ Methane Emissions Measured at Two California Landfills by
OTM-10 and an Acetylene Tracer Method; Green, R.B., Hater, G.R.,
Thoma, E.D., DeWees, J., Rella, C.W., Crosson, E.R., Goldsmith,
C.D., Swan, N., Proceedings of the Global Waste Management
Symposium, San Antonio, TX, October 3-6, 2010.
\38\ Development of Mobile Measurement Method Series OTM 33;
Thoma, E.D.; Brantley, H.L.; Squier, B.; DeWees, J.; Segall, R.;
Merrill, R.; Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Conference
and Exhibition, Raleigh, NC, June 22-25, 2015.
\39\ Impact of Changes in Barometric Pressure on Landfill
Methane Emission; Xu, L., Lin, X., Amen, J., Welding, K. and
McDermitt, D. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2014, 28(7), pp. 679-695.
\40\ Using Eddy Covariance to Quantify Methane Emissions from a
Dynamic Heterogeneous Area; Li, J.; Green, R.B.; Magnusson, D.A.;
Amen, J.; Thoma, E.D.; Foster-Wittig, T.A.; McDermitt, D.K.; Xu, L.;
Burba, G., 2015, June. In Proceedings of the Air and Waste
Management Conference and Exhibition (pp. 22-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Eddy Covariance (EC)
This micrometeorological method estimates the source emission rate
from the vertical wind speed and gas concentration above the emitting
surface. This technique measures the emissions flux in mass of methane
(or other gas) per unit area. The technique is well-established for
measurement of emission fluxes from spatially-extended homogenous
sources, such as very large, flat fields. The DASEC is an application
of EC to finite, heterogeneous area sources. This application of EC has
been recently demonstrated on landfills, although method development
questions on the effects of topography and variable observational
footprint remain. The DASEC provides the potential for long term (near
continuous) measurements of discrete sections of a landfill using
solar-powered onsite instrumentation. Development of this type of long
term measurement capability is critical to better understand and track
changes in landfill emissions over time that may be caused by both site
management and atmospheric factors.
In sum, as noted above, these techniques are still being
investigated and additional work will be needed before the EPA can deem
them ready for use in this application. Once additional research is
completed, we believe that DASEC used in combination with mobile TC
will provide a characterization of methane landfill emissions with
significantly reduced uncertainty over current models or measurement
techniques. However, the EPA requests comments on these and other
potential alternative approaches to emission monitoring at MSW
landfills.
B. Areas With Declining Gas Flow
In the proposed revisions to the MSW Landfills NSPS (79 FR 41817,
July 17, 2014), the EPA recognized that there are situations in which
the quantity of gas production has greatly declined in separate closed
areas of some landfills, and the methane content has fallen such that
the area is producing insufficient gas to properly operate a GCCS and
control device. Thus, the EPA finalized a provision in the MSW
Landfills NSPS (81 FR 59343, August 29, 2016) that allows the use of
actual flow data when estimating NMOC emissions for the purposes of
excluding low- or non-productive areas of the landfill from control. To
use this provision, the non-productive area must be physically
separated and closed. The EPA requests comments on how these provisions
could potentially be improved in the future to better address areas
with declining gas flows.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference (IBR)
We are proposing to incorporate by reference ASTM D6522-11--
Standard Test Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon
Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired
Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process
Heaters Using Portable Analyzers (proposed to be IBR approved for 40
CFR 63.1961(a)(2)(ii) and 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(2)(iii)(B)), which is an
alternative for determining oxygen for wellhead standards. For this
test method, a gas sample is continuously extracted from a duct and
conveyed to a portable analyzer for determination of nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and oxygen gas concentrations using electrochemical
cells. Analyzer design specifications, performance specifications, and
test procedures are provided to ensure reliable data. This method is an
alternative to EPA methods and is consistent with the methods already
allowed under the MSW Landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and
MSW Landfills EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf). The ASTM standards are
available from American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
See http://www.astm.org.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can
be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0505. The only burden created by the proposed rule
is limited to affected sources becoming familiar with the changes in
the proposed rule. The burden for respondents to review rule
requirements each year is already accounted for in the previously
approved information collection activities contained in the existing
regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart
[[Page 36701]]
AAAA), which were assigned OMB control number 2060-0505. Additionally,
changes to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, subpart XXX and subpart Cf only
add clarifying language for affected sources and provide alternatives
for any deviations from the respective standards. These changes would
not increase any burden for affected sources.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action is projected to affect 738
MSW landfills, and approximately 60 of these facilities are owned by a
small entity. The small entities subject to the requirements of this
proposed rule may include private small business and small governmental
jurisdictions that own or operate landfills, but the cost for complying
with the proposed amendments is expected to be $0. We have, therefore,
concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While state, local,
or tribal governments own and operate landfills subject to these
proposed amendments, the impacts resulting from this regulatory action
are far below the applicable threshold.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The database used to
estimate impacts of these proposed amendments identified one tribe, the
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, that owns three landfills
potentially subject to the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAA). Two of these landfills are already controlling
emissions--the Salt River Landfill and the Tri Cities Landfill.
Although the permits for these landfills indicate they are subject to
this subpart, these proposed changes are not estimated to increase the
costs. The other landfill, North Center Street Landfill, is not
estimated to install controls under the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart AAAA).
The EPA will consult with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. A summary of that consultation will be
provided in the docket for this action once completed.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and C and sections IV.B and C of this preamble.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. For the proposed MSW
Landfills NESHAP, the EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 2, 2E, 3, 3A,
3C, 10, 18, 21, 25, 25A, and 25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The EPA
searched for voluntary consensus standards (VCS) using the Enhanced
National Standards Service Network (NSSN) Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The EPA also contacted
VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases. Searches
were conducted for EPA Methods 2, 2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 10, 18, 21, 25, 25A,
and 25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No applicable VCS were
identified for EPA Methods 2E, 21, and 25C. However, the EPA identified
three VCS as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the
purposes of this rule.
The VCS ASTM D6522-11, ``Standard Test Method for the Determination
of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in
Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion
Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers'' is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3A when used at the wellhead
before combustion.
The EPA's search identified 15 additional VCS that are potentially
applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After
reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that 15 candidate
VCS (ASTM D3154-00 (2014), ASTM D3464-96 (2014), ASTM D3796-09 (2016),
ISO 10780: 1994 (2016), ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-
1981 Part 10, ISO 10396:(2007), ISO 12039:2001 (2012), ASTM D5835-95
(2013), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (Rl999), CAN/CSA Z223.21-M1978, ASTM D3162-
12, ASTM D6060-17, ISO 14965:2000 (2012), EN 12619 (2013)) identified
for measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to
emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other important
technical and policy considerations.
The EPA's review, including review of comments for these 15
methods, is documented in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review, in
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047).
In this rule, the EPA is proposing regulatory text for 40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAA that includes IBR in accordance with requirements of 1
CFR 51.5. Specifically, the EPA is incorporating by reference ASTM
D6522-11. The ASTM standards are available from American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org.
[[Page 36702]]
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Our analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated
risks greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in
risks between demographic groups, including the African American,
Hispanic or Latino, Over 25 Without a High School Diploma, and Below
the Poverty Level groups. In addition, the population living within 50
km of the MSW landfills has a higher percentage of minority, lower
income, and lower education people when compared to the nationwide
percentages of those groups. However, acknowledging these potential
disparities, the risks for the source category were determined to be
acceptable, and emissions reductions from the proposed revisions will
benefit these groups the most.
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B
and C of this preamble, and the technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source Category Operations, which is
available in the docket for this action.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: June 27, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Subpart Cf is amended by revising the title of the subpart to read
as follows:
Subpart Cf--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
0
3. Section 60.34f is amended by revising the introductory paragraph to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.34f Operational standards for collection and control systems.
For approval, a state plan must include provisions for the
operational standards in this section (as well as the provisions in
Sec. 60.36f and Sec. 60.37f), or the operational standards in Sec.
63.1958 of this chapter (as well as the provisions in Sec. 63.1960 and
Sec. 63.1961) for an MSW landfill with a gas collection and control
system used to comply with the provisions of Sec. 60.33f(b) and (c).
Once the owner or operator begins to comply with the provisions of
Sec. 63.1958 of this chapter, the owner or operator must continue to
operate the collection and control device according to those provisions
and cannot return to the provisions of this section. Each owner or
operator of an MSW landfill with a gas collection and control system
used to comply with the provisions of Sec. 60.33f(b) and (c) must:
* * * * *
0
4. Section 60.36f is amended by revising the introductory paragraph and
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.36f Compliance provisions.
For approval, a state plan must include the compliance provisions
in this section (as well as the provisions in Sec. 60.34f and Sec.
60.37f), or the compliance provisions in Sec. 63.1960 of this chapter
(as well as the provisions in Sec. 63.1958 and Sec. 63.1961) for an
MSW landfill with a gas collection and control system used to comply
with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 60.33f(b) and (c). Once the owner or
operator begins to comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.1960 of this
chapter, the owner or operator must continue to operate the collection
and control device according to those provisions and cannot return to
the provisions of this section.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the positive pressure or elevated temperature
measurement for which the root cause analysis was required, the owner
or operator must also conduct a corrective action analysis and develop
an implementation schedule to complete the corrective action(s) as soon
as practicable, but no more than 120 days following the measurement of
landfill gas temperature greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees
Fahrenheit) or positive pressure. The owner or operator must submit the
items listed in Sec. 60.38f(h)(7) as part of the next annual report.
The owner or operator must keep records according to Sec.
60.39f(e)(4).
* * * * *
0
5. Section 60.37f is amended by revising the introductory paragraph to
read as follows:
Sec. 60.37f Monitoring of operations.
For approval, a state plan must include the monitoring provisions
in this section, (as well as the provisions in Sec. 60.34f and Sec.
60.36f) except as provided in Sec. 60.38f(d)(2), or the monitoring
provisions in Sec. 63.1961 of this chapter (as well as the provisions
in Sec. 63.1958 and Sec. 63.1960) for an MSW landfill with a gas
collection and control system used to comply with the provisions of
Sec. 60.33f(b) and (c). Once the owner or operator begins to comply
with the provisions of Sec. 63.1961 of this chapter, the owner or
operator must continue to operate the collection and control device
according to those provisions and cannot return to the provisions of
this section.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 60.38f is amended by revising introductory paragraph (h) and
paragraph (h)(7) and adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.38f Reporting guidelines.
* * * * *
(h) Annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill seeking to
comply with Sec. 60.33f(e)(2) using an active collection system
designed in accordance with Sec. 60.33f(b) must submit to the
Administrator, following the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(2)
of this section, an annual report of the recorded information in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section. The initial annual
report must be submitted within 180 days of installation and startup of
the collection and control system. The initial annual report must
include the initial performance test report required under Sec. 60.8,
as applicable, unless the report of the results of the performance test
has been submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX. In the initial annual
report, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested and the
date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in lieu
of the performance test report if the report has been previously
submitted to the EPA's CDX.
[[Page 36703]]
The initial performance test report must be submitted, following the
procedure specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this section, no later than
the date that the initial annual report is submitted. For enclosed
combustion devices and flares, reportable exceedances are defined under
Sec. 60.39f(c)(1). If complying with the operational provisions of
Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed at
Sec. Sec. 60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, the owner or operator must
follow the semi-annual reporting requirements in Sec. 63.1981(h) in
lieu of paragraph (1) of this section.
* * * * *
(7) For any corrective action analysis for which corrective actions
are required in Sec. 60.36f(a)(3) or Sec. 60.36f(a)(5) and that take
more than 60 days to correct the exceedance, the root cause analysis
conducted, including a description of the recommended corrective
action(s), the date for corrective action(s) already completed
following the positive pressure or elevated temperature reading, and,
for action(s) not already completed, a schedule for implementation,
including proposed commencement and completion dates.
* * * * *
(n) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter,
as allowed at in Sec. Sec. 60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, must submit the
24-hour high temperature report according to Sec. 63.1981(k) of this
chapter.
0
7. Section 60.39f is amended by revising introductory text of paragraph
(e) and adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines.
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for at
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of the items in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section. Each owner or operator
that chooses to comply with the provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed at in Sec. Sec.
60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, must keep the records in paragraph (e)(6)
of this section and must keep records according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(1)
through (5) of this chapter in lieu of paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of
this section.
* * * * *
(6) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter,
as allowed at in Sec. Sec. 60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, must keep
records of the date upon which you the owner or operator started
complying with the provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and
63.1961 of this chapter.
* * * * *
Subpart WWW--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills
0
8. Subpart WWW is amended by revising the heading of the subpart to
read as follows:
Subpart WWW--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification on or After May 30, 1991, But Before July 18, 2014
0
9. Section 60.750 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.750 Applicability, designation of affected facility, and
delegation of authority.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each municipal solid
waste landfill that commenced construction, reconstruction or
modification on or after May 30, 1991, but before July 18, 2014.
* * * * *
Subpart XXX--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification After July 17, 2014
0
10. Section 60.762 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.762 Standards for air emissions from municipal solid waste
landfills.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Operation. Operate the collection and control device installed
to comply with this subpart in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. Sec. 60.763, 60.765, and 60.766; or the provisions of Sec. Sec.
63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter. Once the owner or
operator begins to comply with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, the owner or operator must
continue to operate the collection and control device according to
those provisions and cannot return to the provisions of Sec. Sec.
60.763, 60.765, and 60.766.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 60.765 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.765 Compliance provisions.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the positive pressure or elevated temperature
measurement for which the root cause analysis was required, the owner
or operator must also conduct a corrective action analysis and develop
an implementation schedule to complete the corrective action(s) as soon
as practicable, but no more than 120 days following the measurement of
landfill gas temperature greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees
Fahrenheit) or positive pressure. The owner or operator must submit the
items listed in Sec. 60.767(g)(7) as part of the next annual report.
The owner or operator must keep records according to Sec.
60.768(e)(4).
* * * * *
0
12. Section 60.767 is amended by revising introductory paragraph (g)
and paragraph (g)(7) and adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.767 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(g) Annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill seeking to
comply with Sec. 60.762(b)(2) using an active collection system
designed in accordance with Sec. 60.762(b)(2)(ii) must submit to the
Administrator, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(2) of
this section, annual reports of the recorded information in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (7) of this section. The initial annual report must be
submitted within 180 days of installation and startup of the collection
and control system, and must include the initial performance test
report required under Sec. 60.8, as applicable, unless the report of
the results of the performance test has been submitted to the EPA via
the EPA's CDX. In the initial annual report, the process unit(s)
tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance
test was conducted may be submitted in lieu of the performance test
report if the report has been previously submitted to the EPA's CDX.
For enclosed combustion devices and flares, reportable exceedances are
defined under Sec. 60.768(c). If complying with the operational
provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter,
as allowed at Sec. 60.762(b)(2)(iv), the owner or operator must follow
the semi-annual reporting requirements in Sec. 63.1981(h) of this
chapter in lieu of paragraph (1) of this section.
* * * * *
(7) For any corrective action analysis for which corrective actions
are required in Sec. 60.765(a)(3) or Sec. 60.765(a)(5) and that take
more than 60 days to correct the exceedance, the root cause analysis
[[Page 36704]]
conducted, including a description of the recommended corrective
action(s), the date for corrective action(s) already completed
following the positive pressure or elevated temperature reading, and,
for action(s) not already completed, a schedule for implementation,
including proposed commencement and completion dates.
* * * * *
(m) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961, as allowed at
Sec. 60.762(b)(2)(iv), must submit the 24-hour high temperature report
according to Sec. 63.1981(k) of this chapter.
0
13. Section 60.768 is amended by revising introductory paragraph (e)
and adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.768 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 60.767(c)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for at
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of the items in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section. Each owner or operator
that chooses to comply with the provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961, as allowed at Sec. 60.762(b)(2)(iv)), must keep
the records in paragraph (e)(6) of this section and must keep records
according to Sec. Sec. 63.1983(e)(1) through (5) of this chapter in
lieu of paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section.
* * * * *
(6) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter,
as allowed at Sec. 60.762(b)(2)(iv)), must keep records of the date
upon which youthe owner or operator started complying with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
14. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
15. Section 63.14 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (h)(94)
through (h)(111) as paragraphs (h)(95) through (h)(112) and adding new
paragraph (h)(94) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(94) ASTM D6522-11 Standard Test Method for Determination of
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in
Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion
Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers
(Approved December 1, 2011), IBR approved for Sec. 63.1961(a).
* * * * *
0
16. Subpart AAAA is revised to read as follows:
Subpart AAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.1930 What is the purpose of this subpart?
Sec. 63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?
Sec. 63.1940 What is the affected source of this subpart?
Sec. 63.1945 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Sec. 63.1947 When do I have to comply with this subpart if I own or
operate a bioreactor?
Sec. 63.1950 When am I no longer required to comply with this
subpart?
Sec. 63.1952 When am I no longer required to comply with the
requirements of this subpart if I own or operate a bioreactor?
Standards
Sec. 63.1955 What requirements must I meet?
Sec. 63.1957 Requirements for gas collection and control system
installation and removal.
Sec. 63.1958 Operational standards for collection and control
systems.
Sec. 63.1959 NMOC calculation procedures.
Sec. 63.1960 Compliance provisions.
Sec. 63.1961 Monitoring of operations.
Sec. 63.1962 Specifications for active collection systems.
General and Continuing Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.1964 How is compliance determined?
Sec. 63.1965 What is a deviation?
Sec. 63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour block average used to
demonstrate compliance?
Notifications, Records, and Reports
Sec. 63.1981 What reports must I submit?
Sec. 63.1982 What records and reports must I submit and keep for
bioreactors or liquids addition other than leachate?
Sec. 63.1983 What records must I keep?
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.1985 Who enforces this subpart?
Sec. 63.1990 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables for Subpart AAAA
Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63--Applicability of NESHAP General
Provisions to Subpart AAAA
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.1930 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants for existing and new municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills.
(a) Before [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all landfills described in Sec.
63.1935 must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, or
an approved state or federal plan that implements 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc, and requires timely control of bioreactors and additional
reporting requirements. Landfills must also meet the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) requirements of the general provisions as
specified in Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63 and must demonstrate
compliance with the operating conditions by parameter monitoring
results that are within the specified ranges. Specifically, landfills
must meet the following requirements of this subpart that apply before
[DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] as set out in: Sec. Sec. 63.1955(a) and (b),
63.1965(a) and (c), 63.1975, 63.1981(a) and (b), and 63.1982, and the
definitions of ``Controlled landfill'' and ``Deviation'' in Sec.
63.1990.
(b) Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], all landfills
described in Sec. 63.1935 must meet the requirements of this subpart.
A landfill may chose to meet the requirements of this subpart rather
than the requirements identified in Sec. 63.1930(a) at any time before
[DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. The requirements of this subpart apply at all times
including during periods of SSM, and the SSM requirements of the
general provisions of this part do not apply.
Sec. 63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you meet the criteria in
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an MSW
landfill that has accepted waste since November 8, 1987, or has
additional capacity for waste deposition and meets any one of the three
criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Your MSW landfill is a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2 of
subpart A.
[[Page 36705]]
(2) Your MSW landfill is collocated with a major source as defined
in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A.
(3) Your MSW landfill is an area source landfill that has a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5
million cubic meters (m\3\) and has estimated uncontrolled emissions
equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) NMOC as
calculated according to Sec. 63.1959.
(b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an MSW
landfill that has accepted waste since November 8, 1987, or has
additional capacity for waste deposition, that includes a bioreactor,
as defined in Sec. 63.1990, and that meets any one of the criteria in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Your MSW landfill is a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2 of
subpart A.
(2) Your MSW landfill is collocated with a major source as defined
in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A.
(3) Your MSW landfill is an area source landfill that has a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\
and that is not permanently closed as of January 16, 2003.
Sec. 63.1940 What is the affected source of this subpart?
(a) An affected source of this subpart is an MSW landfill, as
defined in Sec. 63.1990, that meets the criteria in Sec. 63.1935(a)
or (b). The affected source includes the entire disposal facility in a
contiguous geographic space where household waste is placed in or on
land, including any portion of the MSW landfill operated as a
bioreactor.
(b) A new affected source of this subpart is an affected source
that commenced construction or reconstruction after November 7, 2000.
An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of
reconstruction in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A.
(c) An affected source of this subpart is existing if it is not
new.
Sec. 63.1945 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If your landfill is a new affected source, you must comply with
this subpart by January 16, 2003, or at the time you begin operating,
whichever is later.
(b) If your landfill is an existing affected source, you must
comply with this subpart by January 16, 2004.
Sec. 63.1947 When do I have to comply with this subpart if I own or
operate a bioreactor?
You must comply with this subpart by the dates specified in Sec.
63.1945(a) or (b). If you own or operate a bioreactor located at a
landfill that is not permanently closed as of January 16, 2003, and has
a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m\3\, then you must install and operate a collection and
control system that meets the criteria in Sec. 63.1959(b)(2) according
to the schedule specified in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this
section.
(a) If your bioreactor is at a new affected source, then you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Install the gas collection and control system for the
bioreactor before initiating liquids addition.
(2) Begin operating the gas collection and control system within
180 days after initiating liquids addition or within 180 days after
achieving a moisture content of 40 percent by weight, whichever is
later. If you choose to begin gas collection and control system
operation 180 days after achieving a 40 percent moisture content
instead of 180 days after liquids addition, use the procedures in
Sec. Sec. 63.1980(g) and (h) to determine when the bioreactor moisture
content reaches 40 percent.
(b) If your bioreactor is at an existing affected source, then you
must install and begin operating the gas collection and control system
for the bioreactor by January 17, 2006, or by the date your bioreactor
is required to install a gas collection and control system under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart WWW; the Federal plan; or an EPA approved and
effective State plan or tribal plan that applies to your landfill,
whichever is earlier.
(c) If your bioreactor is at an existing affected source and you do
not initiate liquids addition to your bioreactor until later than
January 17, 2006, then you must meet the requirements in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Install the gas collection and control system for the
bioreactor before initiating liquids addition.
(2) Begin operating the gas collection and control system within
180 days after initiating liquids addition or within 180 days after
achieving a moisture content of 40 percent by weight, whichever is
later. If you choose to begin gas collection and control system
operation 180 days after achieving a 40 percent moisture content
instead of 180 days after liquids addition, use the procedures in
Sec. Sec. 63.1980(e) and (f) to determine when the bioreactor moisture
content reaches 40 percent.
Sec. 63.1950 When am I no longer required to comply with this
subpart?
(a) You are no longer required to comply with the requirements of
this subpart when your landfill meets the collection and control system
removal criteria in Sec. 63.1957(b).
Sec. 63.1952 When am I no longer required to comply with the
requirements of this subpart if I own or operate a bioreactor?
If you own or operate a landfill that includes a bioreactor, you
are no longer required to comply with the requirements of this subpart
for the bioreactor provided you meet the conditions of either paragraph
(a) or (b) of this section.
(a) Your affected source meets the control system removal criteria
in Sec. 63.1950 or the bioreactor meets the criteria for a
nonproductive area of the landfill in Sec. 63.1962(a)(3)(ii).
(b) The bioreactor portion of the landfill is a closed landfill as
defined in Sec. 63.1990, you have permanently ceased adding liquids to
the bioreactor, and you have not added liquids to the bioreactor for at
least 1 year. A closure report for the bioreactor must be submitted to
the Administrator as provided in Sec. 63.1981(g).
Standards
Sec. 63.1955 What requirements must I meet?
(a) Before [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping or reporting provisions have already been approved under
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW or the federal plan, or an EPA approved and
effective state or tribal plan, these alternatives can be used to
comply with this subpart, except that all affected sources must comply
with the SSM requirements in subpart A of this part as specified in
Table 1 of this subpart and all affected sources must submit compliance
reports every 6 months as specified in Sec. 63.1981(h), including
information on all deviations that occurred during the 6-month
reporting period. Deviations for continuous emission monitors or
numerical continuous parameter monitors must be determined using a 3-
hour monitoring block average. Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS
+ 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], the collection and control system design plan may include
for approval collection and control systems that include any
alternatives to the operational standards, test methods,
[[Page 36706]]
procedures, compliance measures, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting
provisions, as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2).
(b) If you own or operate a bioreactor that is located at an MSW
landfill that is not permanently closed and has a design capacity equal
to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\, then you must
meet the requirements of this subpart, including requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must comply with this subpart starting on the date you are
required to install the gas collection and control system.
(2) You must extend the collection and control system into each new
cell or area of the bioreactor prior to initiating liquids addition in
that area.
(c) At all times, beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner
or operator must operate and maintain any affected source, including
associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize
emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.
Sec. 63.1957 Requirements for gas collection and control system
installation and removal.
(a) Operation. Operate the collection and control device in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and
63.1961.
(b) Removal criteria. The collection and control system may be
capped, removed, or decommissioned if the following criteria are met:
(1) The landfill is a closed landfill (as defined in Sec.
63.1990). A closure report must be submitted to the Administrator as
provided in Sec. 63.1981(f);
(2) The gas collection and control system has been in operation a
minimum of 15 years or the landfill owner or operator demonstrates that
the gas collection and control system will be unable to operate for 15
years due to declining gas flow; and
(3) Following the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1959(c), the
calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than 50 megagrams
per year on three successive test dates. The test dates must be no less
than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart.
Sec. 63.1958 Operational standards for collection and control
systems.
Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill with a gas collection and
control system used to comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.1957
must:
(a) Operate the collection system such that gas is collected from
each area, cell, or group of cells in the MSW landfill in which solid
waste has been in place for:
(1) 5 years or more if active; or
(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade;
(b) Operate the collection system with negative pressure at each
wellhead except under the following conditions:
(1) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator
must record instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid
a fire. These records must be submitted with the semi-annual reports as
provided in Sec. 63.1981(h);
(2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator
must develop acceptable pressure limits in the design plan;
(3) A decommissioned well. A well may experience a static positive
pressure after shut down to accommodate for declining flows. All design
changes must be approved by the Administrator as specified in Sec.
63.1981(d)(2);
(c) Operate each interior wellhead in the collection system as
specified in Sec. 60.753(c), except:
(1) Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], operate each
interior wellhead in the collection system with a landfill gas
temperature less than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit).
(2) The owner or operator may establish a higher operating
temperature value at a particular well. A higher operating value
demonstration must be submitted to the Administrator for approval and
must include supporting data demonstrating that the elevated parameter
neither causes fires nor significantly inhibits anaerobic decomposition
by killing methanogens. The demonstration must satisfy both criteria in
order to be approved (i.e., neither causing fires nor killing
methanogens is acceptable).
(d)(1) Operate the collection system so that the methane
concentration is less than 500 parts per million above background at
the surface of the landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded,
the owner or operator must conduct surface testing around the perimeter
of the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill
at no more than 30-meter intervals and where visual observations
indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed
vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover. The owner or operator may
establish an alternative traversing pattern that ensures equivalent
coverage. A surface monitoring design plan must be developed that
includes a topographical map with the monitoring route and the
rationale for any site-specific deviations from the 30-meter intervals.
Areas with steep slopes or other dangerous areas may be excluded from
the surface testing.
(2) Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the owner or
operator must:
(A) Conduct surface testing using an organic vapor analyzer, flame
ionization detector, or other portable monitor meeting the
specifications provided in Sec. 63.1960(d).
(B) Conduct surface testing at all cover penetrations. Thus, the
owner or operator must monitor any openings that are within an area of
the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is
required.
(C) Determine the latitude and longitude coordinates using an
instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must
be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal places.
(e) Operate the system as specified in Sec. 60.753(e), except:
(1) Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], operate the system
in accordance to Sec. 63.1955(c) such that all collected gases are
vented to a control system designed and operated in compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii). In the event the collection or control system
is not operating:
(i) The gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the
collection and control system contributing to venting of the gas to the
atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour of the collection or control
system not operating; and
(ii) Efforts to repair the collection or control system must be
initiated and completedin a manner such that downtime is kept to a
minimum, and
[[Page 36707]]
the collection and control system must be returned to operation.
(f) Operate the control system at all times when the collected gas
is routed to the system.
(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the operational requirements in
paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met, corrective
action must be taken as specified in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3) and (5) or
Sec. 63.1960(c). If corrective actions are taken as specified in Sec.
63.1960, the monitored exceedance is not a deviation of the operational
requirements in this section.
Sec. 63.1959 NMOC calculation procedures.
(a) Calculate the NMOC emission rate using the procedures specified
in Sec. 60.754(a), except:
(1) Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the landfill owner
or operator must calculate the NMOC emission rate using either Equation
1 provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or Equation 2
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. Both Equation 1 and
Equation 2 may be used if the actual year-to-year solid waste
acceptance rate is known, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section, for part of the life of the landfill and the actual year-to-
year solid waste acceptance rate is unknown, as specified in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this section, for part of the life of the landfill. The
values to be used in both Equation 1 and Equation 2 are 0.05 per year
for k, 170 cubic meters per megagram for LO, and 4,000 parts
per million by volume as hexane for the CNMOC. For landfills
located in geographical areas with a 30-year annual average
precipitation of less than 25 inches, as measured at the nearest
representative official meteorologic site, the k value to be used is
0.02 per year.
(i)(A) Equation 1 must be used if the actual year-to-year solid
waste acceptance rate is known.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JY19.000
Where:
MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the landfill,
megagrams per year.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per
megagram solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, megagrams.
ti = Age of the ith section, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by
volume as hexane.
3.6 x 10-9 = Conversion factor.
(B) The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted from
the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of the landfill
when calculating the value for Mi if documentation of the
nature and amount of such wastes is maintained.
(ii)(A) Equation 2 must be used if the actual year-to-year solid
waste acceptance rate is unknown.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JY19.001
Where:
MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year.
Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per
megagram solid waste.
R = Average annual acceptance rate, megagrams per year.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
t = Age of landfill, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by
volume as hexane.
c = Time since closure, years; for active landfill c = 0 and
e-kc = 1.
3.6 x 10-9 = Conversion factor.
(B) The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted from
the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of the landfill
when calculating the value of R, if documentation of the nature and
amount of such wastes is maintained.
(2) Tier 1. The owner or operator must compare the calculated NMOC
mass emission rate to the standard of 50 megagrams per year.
(i) If the NMOC emission rate calculated in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section is less than 50 megagrams per year, then the landfill
owner or operator must submit an NMOC emission rate report according to
Sec. 63.1981(c) and must recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate
annually as required under paragraph (b) of this section.
(ii) If the calculated NMOC emission rate as calculated in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is equal to or greater than 50
megagrams per year, then the landfill owner must either:
(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan within 1
year as specified in Sec. 63.1981(d) and install and operate a gas
collection and control system within 30 months of the first annual
report in which the NMOC emission rate equals or exceeds 50 megagrams
per year, according to paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section;
(B) Determine a site-specific NMOC concentration and recalculate
the NMOC emission rate using the Tier 2 procedures provided in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section; or
(C) Determine a site-specific methane generation rate constant and
recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the Tier 3 procedures provided
in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(3) Tier 2. The landfill owner or operator must determine the site-
specific NMOC concentration using the following sampling procedure. The
landfill owner or operator must install at least two sample probes per
hectare, evenly distributed over the landfill surface that has retained
waste for at least 2 years. If the landfill is larger than 25 hectares
in area, only 50 samples are required. The probes should be evenly
distributed across the sample area. The sample probes should be located
to avoid known areas of nondegradable solid waste. The owner or
operator must collect and analyze one sample of landfill gas from each
probe to determine the NMOC concentration using Method 25 or 25C of
appendix A-7 to part 60. Taking composite samples from different probes
into a single cylinder is allowed; however, equal sample volumes must
be taken from each probe. For each composite, the sampling rate,
collection times, beginning and ending cylinder vacuums, or alternative
volume measurements must be recorded to verify that composite volumes
are equal. Composite sample volumes should not be less than one liter
unless evidence can be provided to substantiate the accuracy of smaller
volumes. Terminate compositing before the cylinder approaches ambient
pressure where measurement accuracy diminishes. If more than the
required number of samples are taken, all samples must be used in the
analysis. The landfill owner or operator must divide the NMOC
concentration from Method 25 or 25C of
[[Page 36708]]
appendix A-7 to part 60 by 6 to convert from CNMOC as carbon
to CNMOC as hexane. If the landfill has an active or passive
gas removal system in place, Method 25 or 25C samples may be collected
from these systems instead of surface probes provided the removal
system can be shown to provide sampling as representative as the two
sampling probe per hectare requirement. For active collection systems,
samples may be collected from the common header pipe. The sample
location on the common header pipe must be before any gas moving,
condensate removal, or treatment system equipment. For active
collection systems, a minimum of three samples must be collected from
the header pipe.
(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.7), the owner or operator must submit the
results according to Sec. 63.1981(i).
(ii) The landfill owner or operator must recalculate the NMOC mass
emission rate using Equation 1 or Equation 2 provided in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section and use the average site-specific
NMOC concentration from the collected samples instead of the default
value provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(iii) If the resulting NMOC mass emission rate is less than 50
megagrams per year, then the owner or operator must submit a periodic
estimate of NMOC emissions in an NMOC emission rate report according to
Sec. 63.1981(c) and must recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate
annually as required under paragraph (b) of this section. The site-
specific NMOC concentration must be retested every 5 years using the
methods specified in this section.
(iv) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the Tier 2
site-specific NMOC concentration is equal to or greater than 50
megagrams per year, the landfill owner or operator must either:
(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan within 1
year as specified in Sec. 63.1981(d) and install and operate a gas
collection and control system within 30 months according to paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section; or
(B) Determine a site-specific methane generation rate constant and
recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the site-specific methane
generation rate using the Tier 3 procedures specified in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section.
(4) Tier 3. The site-specific methane generation rate constant must
be determined using the procedures provided in Method 2E of appendix A-
1 to part 60. The landfill owner or operator must estimate the NMOC
mass emission rate using Equation 1 or Equation 2 in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section and using a site-specific
methane generation rate constant, and the site-specific NMOC
concentration as determined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section instead
of the default values provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The
landfill owner or operator must compare the resulting NMOC mass
emission rate to the standard of 50 megagrams per year.
(i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the Tier 2
site-specific NMOC concentration and Tier 3 site-specific methane
generation rate is equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per year, the
owner or operator must:
(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan within 1
year as specified in Sec. 63.1981(e) and install and operate a gas
collection and control system within 30 months of the first annual
report in which the NMOC emission rate equals or exceeds 50 megagrams
per year, according to paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate is less than 50 megagrams per
year, then the owner or operator must recalculate the NMOC mass
emission rate annually using Equation 1 or Equation 2 in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section and using the site-specific Tier 2 NMOC
concentration and Tier 3 methane generation rate constant and submit a
periodic NMOC emission rate report as provided in Sec. 63.1981(c). The
calculation of the methane generation rate constant is performed only
once, and the value obtained from this test must be used in all
subsequent annual NMOC emission rate calculations.
(5) The owner or operator may use other methods to determine the
NMOC concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate constant
as an alternative to the methods required in paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4) of this section if the method has been approved by the
Administrator.
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected source having a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million
cubic meters must either comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section
or calculate an NMOC emission rate for the landfill using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a) of this section. The NMOC
emission rate must be recalculated annually, except as provided in
Sec. 63.1981(c)(1)(ii)(A).
(1) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is less than 50 megagrams
per year, the owner or operator must:
(i) Submit an annual NMOC emission rate emission report to the
Administrator, except as provided for in Sec. 63.1981(c)(1)(ii); and
(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission rate annually using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section until such
time as the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than
50 megagrams per year, or the landfill is closed.
(A) If the calculated NMOC emission rate, upon initial calculation
or annual recalculation required in paragraph (b) of this section, is
equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per year, the owner or operator
must either: Comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section or calculate
NMOC emissions using the next higher tier in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(B) If the landfill is permanently closed, a closure report must be
submitted to the Administrator as provided for in Sec. 63.1981(f).
(2) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater
than 50 megagrams per year using Tier 1, 2, or 3 procedures, the owner
or operator must either:
(i) Submit a collection and control system design plan prepared by
a professional engineer to the Administrator within 1 year as specified
in Sec. 63.1981(d) or calculate NMOC emissions using the next higher
tier in paragraph (a) of this section. The collection and control
system must meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of
this section.
(ii) Collection system. Install and start up a collection and
control system that captures the gas generated within the landfill as
required by paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(B) or (C) and (b)(2)(iii) of this
section within 30 months after:
(A) The first annual report in which the NMOC emission rate equals
or exceeds 50 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling
demonstrates that the NMOC emission rate is less than 50 megagrams.
(B) An active collection system must:
(1) Be designed to handle the maximum expected gas flow rate from
the entire area of the landfill that warrants control over the intended
use period of the gas control system equipment;
(2) Collect gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the
landfill in which the initial solid waste has been placed for a period
of 5 years or more if active; or 2 years or more if closed or at final
grade;
[[Page 36709]]
(3) Collect gas at a sufficient extraction rate; and
(4) Be designed to minimize off-site migration of subsurface gas.
(C) A passive collection system must:
(1) Comply with the provisions specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii)(B)(1), (2), and (3) of this section; and
(2) Be installed with liners on the bottom and all sides in all
areas in which gas is to be collected. The liners must be installed as
required under Sec. 258.40.
(iii) Control system. Route all the collected gas to a control
system that complies with the requirements in either paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
(A) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with
the parameters established in Sec. 63.11(b) except as noted in
paragraph (f) of this section; or
(B) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98
weight-percent, or, when an enclosed combustion device is used for
control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight-percent or reduce the
outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 parts per million by volume,
dry basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen. The reduction efficiency or
parts per million by volume must be established by an initial
performance test to be completed no later than 180 days after the
initial startup of the approved control system using the test methods
specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The performance test is not
required for boilers and process heaters with design heat input
capacities equal to or greater than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas
for compliance with this subpart.
(1) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device,
the landfill gas stream must be introduced into the flame zone.
(2) The control device must be operated within the parameter ranges
established during the initial or most recent performance test. The
operating parameters to be monitored are specified in Sec. Sec.
63.1961(b) through (e);
(C) A treatment system that processes the collected gas for
subsequent sale or beneficial use such as fuel for combustion,
production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline
injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing
process. Venting of treated landfill gas to the ambient air is not
allowed. If the treated landfill gas cannot be routed for subsequent
sale or beneficial use, then the treated landfill gas must be
controlled according to either paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this
section.
(D) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment
system are subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or
(B) of this section. For purposes of this subpart, atmospheric vents
located on the condensate storage tank are not part of the treatment
system and are exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)
or (B) of this section.
(c) After the installation and startup of a collection and control
system in compliance with this subpart, the owner or operator must
calculate the NMOC emission rate for purposes of determining when the
system can be capped, removed, or decommissioned as provided in Sec.
63.1957(b)(3), using Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JY19.002
Where:
MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year.
QLFG = Flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per
minute.
CNMOC = Average NMOC concentration, parts per million by
volume as hexane.
1.89 x 10-3 = Conversion factor.
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, must be
determined by measuring the total landfill gas flow rate at the common
header pipe that leads to the control system using a gas flow measuring
device calibrated according to the provisions of section 10 of Method
2E of appendix A-1 of part 60.
(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, must be
determined by collecting and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the
common header pipe before the gas moving or condensate removal
equipment using the procedures in Method 25 or Method 25C of appendix
A-7 to part 60. The sample location on the common header pipe must be
before any condensate removal or other gas refining units. The landfill
owner or operator must divide the NMOC concentration from Method 25 or
Method 25C of appendix A-7 to part 60 by 6 to convert from
CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
(3) The owner or operator may use another method to determine
landfill gas flow rate and NMOC concentration if the method has been
approved by the Administrator.
(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.7), the owner or operator must submit the
results of the performance test, including any associated fuel
analyses, according to Sec. 63.1981(i).
(ii) [Reserved]
(d) For the performance test required in Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(B), Method 25 or 25C (Method 25C of appendix A-7 to
part 60 may be used at the inlet only) of appendix A of this part must
be used to determine compliance with the 98 weight-percent efficiency
or the 20 parts per million by volume outlet concentration level,
unless another method to demonstrate compliance has been approved by
the Administrator as provided by Sec. 63.1981(d)(2). Method 3, 3A, or
3C of appendix A-7 to part 60 must be used to determine oxygen for
correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3 percent. In cases
where the outlet concentration is less than 50 ppm NMOC as carbon (8
ppm NMOC as hexane), Method 25A should be used in place of Method 25.
Method 18 may be used in conjunction with Method 25A on a limited basis
(compound specific, e.g., methane) or Method 3C may be used to
determine methane. The methane as carbon should be subtracted from the
Method 25A total hydrocarbon value as carbon to give NMOC concentration
as carbon. The landowner or operator must divide the NMOC concentration
as carbon by 6 to convert from the CNMOC as carbon to
CNMOC as hexane. Equation 4 must be used to calculate
efficiency:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JY19.003
Where:
NMOCin = Mass of NMOC entering control device.
NMOCout = Mass of NMOC exiting control device.
(e) For the performance test required in Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A), the net heating
[[Page 36710]]
value of the combusted landfill gas as determined in Sec.
63.11(b)(6)(ii) is calculated from the concentration of methane in the
landfill gas as measured by Method 3C. A minimum of three 30-minute
Method 3C samples are determined. The measurement of other organic
components, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide is not applicable. Method 3C
may be used to determine the landfill gas molecular weight for
calculating the flare gas exit velocity under Sec. 63.11(b)(7).
(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.7), the owner or operator must submit the
results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel
analyses, required by Sec. 63.1959(c) or (e) according to Sec.
63.1981(i).
(2) [Reserved]
(f) The performance tests required in Sec. Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A) and (B), must be conducted under such conditions
as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance of the affected source for the period being
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown unless specified by the Administrator. The owner or operator
may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The
owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
Sec. 63.1960 Compliance provisions.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), the specified
methods in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section must be used
to determine whether the gas collection system is in compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii).
(1) For the purposes of calculating the maximum expected gas
generation flow rate from the landfill to determine compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(C)(1), either Equation 5 or Equation 6 must be
used. The owner or operator may use another method to determine the
maximum gas generation flow rate, if the method has been approved by
the Administrator. The methane generation rate constant (k) and methane
generation potential (Lo) kinetic factors should be those
published in the most recent Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors (AP-42) or other site specific values demonstrated to be
appropriate and approved by the Administrator. If k has been determined
as specified in Sec. 63.1959(a)(4), the value of k determined from the
test must be used. A value of no more than 15 years must be used for
the intended use period of the gas mover equipment. The active life of
the landfill is the age of the landfill plus the estimated number of
years until closure.
(i) For sites with unknown year-to-year solid waste acceptance
rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JY19.004
Where:
Qm = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic meters per
year.
Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per
megagram solid waste.
R = Average annual acceptance rate, megagrams per year.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
t = Age of the landfill at equipment installation plus the time the
owner or operator intends to use the gas mover equipment or active
life of the landfill, whichever is less. If the equipment is
installed after closure, t is the age of the landfill at
installation, years.
c = Time since closure, years (for an active landfill c = 0 and
e-kc = 1).
2 = Constant
(ii) For sites with known year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JY19.005
Where:
Qm = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic meters per
year.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per
megagram solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section,
megagrams.
ti = Age of the ith section, years.
(iii) If a collection and control system has been installed, actual
flow data may be used to project the maximum expected gas generation
flow rate instead of, or in conjunction with, Equation 5 or Equation 6
in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the landfill is
still accepting waste, the actual measured flow data will not equal the
maximum expected gas generation rate, so calculations using Equation 5
or Equation 6 in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section or other
methods must be used to predict the maximum expected gas generation
rate over the intended period of use of the gas control system
equipment.
(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas
collectors for compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B)(2), the owner
or operator must design a system of vertical wells, horizontal
collectors, or other collection devices, satisfactory to the
Administrator, capable of controlling and extracting gas from all
portions of the landfill sufficient to meet all operational and
performance standards.
(3) For the purpose of demonstrating whether the gas collection
system flow rate is sufficient to determine compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B)(3), the owner or operator must measure gauge
pressure in the gas collection header applied to each individual well
monthly. Any attempted corrective measure must not cause exceedances of
other operational or performance standards. An alternative timeline for
correcting the exceedance may be submitted to the Administrator for
approval. If a positive pressure exists, follow the procedures as
specified in Sec. 60.755(a)(3), except:
(i) Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if a positive
pressure exists, action must be initiated to correct the exceedance
within 5 days, except for the three conditions allowed under Sec.
63.1958(b).
(A) If negative pressure cannot be achieved without excess air
infiltration within 15 days of the first measurement of positive
pressure, the owner or operator must conduct a root cause analysis and
correct the exceedance as soon as practicable, but no later than 60
days after positive pressure was first measured. The owner or operator
must
[[Page 36711]]
keep records according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(3).
(B) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the positive pressure measurement for which the root
cause analysis was required, the owner or operator must also conduct a
corrective action analysis and develop an implementation schedule to
complete the corrective action(s) as soon as practicable, but no more
than 120 days following the positive pressure measurement. The owner or
operator must submit the items listed in Sec. 63.1981(h)(7) as part of
the next semi-annual report. The owner or operator must keep records
according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(5).
(C) If corrective action is expected to take longer than 120 days
to complete after the initial exceedance, the owner or operator must
submit the root cause analysis, corrective action analysis, and
corresponding implementation timeline to the Administrator, according
to Sec. 63.1981(j). The owner or operator must keep records according
to Sec. 63.1983(e)(5).
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the temperature and
nitrogen or oxygen operational standards in introductory paragraph
Sec. 63.1958(c), for the purpose of identifying whether excess air
infiltration into the landfill is occurring, the owner or operator must
follow the procedures as specified in Sec. 60.755(a)(5), except:
(i) Once an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), the owner or operator must
monitor each well monthly for temperature for the purpose of
identifying whether excess air infiltration exists. If a well exceeds
the operating parameter for temperature as provided in Sec.
63.1958(c)(1), action must be initiated to correct the exceedance
within 5 days. Any attempted corrective measure must not cause
exceedances of other operational or performance standards.
(A) If a landfill gas temperature less than or equal to 62.8
degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit) cannot be achieved within 15
days of the first measurement of landfill gas temperature greater than
62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit), the owner or operator
must conduct a root cause analysis and correct the exceedance as soon
as practicable, but no later than 60 days after a landfill gas
temperature greater than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit)
was first measured. The owner or operator must keep records according
to Sec. 63.1983(e)(3).
(B) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the temperature measurement for which the root cause
analysis was required, the owner or operator must also conduct a
corrective action analysis and develop an implementation schedule to
complete the corrective action(s) as soon as practicable, but no more
than 120 days following the measurement of landfill gas temperature
greater than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit). The owner
or operator must submit the items listed in Sec. 63.1981(h)(7) as part
of the next semi-annual report. The owner or operator must keep records
according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(4).
(C) If corrective action is expected to take longer than 120 days
to complete after the initial exceedance, the owner or operator must
submit the root cause analysis, corrective action analysis, and
corresponding implementation timeline to the Administrator, according
to Sec. 63.1981(h)(7) and Sec. 63.1981(j). The owner or operator must
keep records according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(5).
(D) If a landfill gas temperature measured at either the wellhead
or at any point in the well is greater than or equal to 76.7 degrees
Celsius (170 degrees Fahrenheit) and the carbon monoxide concentration
measured, according to the procedures in Sec. 63.1961(a)(5)(vi) is
greater than or equal to 1,500 ppmv the corrective action(s) must be
completed within 15 days.
(5) An owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B)(4) through the use of a collection system
not conforming to the specifications provided in Sec. 63.1962 must
provide information satisfactory to the Administrator as specified in
Sec. 63.1981(c)(3) demonstrating that off-site migration is being
controlled.
(b) For purposes of compliance with Sec. 63.1958(a), each owner or
operator of a controlled landfill must place each well or design
component as specified in the approved design plan as provided in Sec.
63.1981(b). Each well must be installed no later than 60 days after the
date on which the initial solid waste has been in place for a period
of:
(1) 5 years or more if active; or
(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade.
(c) The following procedures must be used for compliance with the
surface methane operational standard as provided in Sec. 63.1958(d).
(1) After installation and startup of the gas collection system,
the owner or operator must monitor surface concentrations of methane
along the entire perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern
that traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals (or a site-specific
established spacing) for each collection area on a quarterly basis
using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector, or other
portable monitor meeting the specifications provided in paragraph (d)
of this section.
(2) The background concentration must be determined by moving the
probe inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the landfill at
a distance of at least 30 meters from the perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in accordance
with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60, except that
the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10 centimeters of the
ground. Monitoring must be performed during typical meteorological
conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above background
at any location must be recorded as a monitored exceedance and the
actions specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section
must be taken. As long as the specified actions are taken, the
exceedance is not a violation of the operational requirements of Sec.
63.1958(d).
(i) The location of each monitored exceedance must be marked and
the location and concentration recorded.
(A) Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the location must
be recorded using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters.
(B) (i) [Reserved]
(ii) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the adjacent
wells to increase the gas collection in the vicinity of each exceedance
must be made and the location must be re-monitored within 10 days of
detecting the exceedance.
(iii) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second
exceedance, additional corrective action must be taken and the location
must be monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the
re-monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the
action specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section must be taken,
and no further monitoring of that location is required until the action
specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section has been taken.
(iv) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a
methane
[[Page 36712]]
concentration less than 500 ppm methane above background at the 10-day
re-monitoring specified in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this
section must be re-monitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If
the 1-month re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 parts per
million above background, no further monitoring of that location is
required until the next quarterly monitoring period. If the 1-month re-
monitoring shows an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph
(c)(4)(iii) or (v) of this section must be taken.
(v) For any location where monitored methane concentration equals
or exceeds 500 parts per million above background three times within a
quarterly period, a new well or other collection device must be
installed within 120 days of the initial exceedance. An alternative
remedy to the exceedance, such as upgrading the blower, header pipes or
control device, and a corresponding timeline for installation may be
submitted to the Administrator for approval.
(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to monitor for
cover integrity and implement cover repairs as necessary on a monthly
basis.
(d) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions in
paragraph (c) of this section must comply with the following
instrumentation specifications and procedures for surface emission
monitoring devices:
(1) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument specifications
provided in section 6 of Method 21 of appendix A of part 60, except
that ``methane'' replaces all references to ``VOC''.
(2) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a nominal
concentration of 500 parts per million in air.
(3) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 8.1
of Method 21 of appendix A of part 60, the instrument evaluation
procedures of section 8.1 of Method 21 of appendix A of part 60 must be
used.
(4) The calibration procedures provided in sections 8 and 10 of
Method 21 of appendix A of part 60 must be followed immediately before
commencing a surface monitoring survey.
(e)(1) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standards
in introductory paragraph Sec. 63.1958(c), the provisions of this
subpart apply at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction, provided that the duration of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction does not exceed 5 days for collection systems and does not
exceed 1 hour for treatment or control devices. You must comply with
the provisions in Table 1 to subpart AAAA that apply before [DATE 18
MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(2) Once an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), the provisions of this subpart apply at all
times, including periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. During
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must comply with the
work practice requirement specified in Sec. 63.1958(e) in lieu of the
compliance provisions in Sec. 63.1960.
Sec. 63.1961 Monitoring of operations.
Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2):
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B) for an active gas collection system must install a
sampling port and a thermometer, other temperature measuring device, or
an access port for temperature measurements at each wellhead and:
(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the gas collection header on a
monthly basis as provided in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3); and
(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen concentration in the landfill gas on
a monthly basis as follows:
(i) The nitrogen level must be determined using Method 3C of
Appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter, unless an alternative test
method is established as allowed by Sec. 63.1981(d)(2).
(ii) Unless an alternative test method is established as allowed by
Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), the oxygen level must be determined by an oxygen
meter using Method 3A or 3C of Appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter
or ASTM D6522-11 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
Determine the oxygen level by an oxygen meter using Method 3A or 3C of
Appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter or ASTM D6522-11 (if sample
location is prior to combustion) except that:
(A) The span must be set between 10 and 12 percent oxygen;
(B) A data recorder is not required;
(C) Only two calibration gases are required, a zero and span;
(D) A calibration error check is not required; and
(E) The allowable sample bias, zero drift, and calibration drift
are 10 percent.
(iii) A portable gas composition analyzer may be used to monitor
the oxygen levels provided:
(A) The analyzer is calibrated; and
(B) The analyzer meets all quality assurance and quality control
requirements for Method 3A of Appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter
or ASTM D6522-11 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(3) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the temperature and
nitrogen or oxygen operational standards in introductory paragraph
Sec. 63.1958(c), the owner or operator must follow the procedures as
specified in Sec. 60.756(a)(2) and (3) of this chapter. Monitor
temperature of the landfill gas on a monthly basis as provided in Sec.
63.1960(a)(4). The temperature measuring device must be calibrated
annually using the procedure in Section 10.3 of Method 2 of Appendix A-
1 to part 60 of this chapter.
(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), monitor temperature of the
landfill gas on a monthly basis as provided in Sec. 63.1960(a)(4). The
temperature measuring device must be calibrated annually using the
procedure in Section 10.3 of Method 2 of Appendix A-1 to part 60 of
this chapter. Keep records specified in Sec. 63.19.
(5) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), unless a higher operating
temperature value has been approved by the Administrator, you must
initiate enhanced monitoring at all wells with a measurement of
landfill gas temperature greater than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees
Fahrenheit) and less than 76.7 degrees Celsius (170 degrees
Fahrenheit), as follows:
(i) Visual observations for subsurface oxidation events (smoke,
smoldering ash, damage to well) within the radius of influence of the
well;
(ii) Monitor oxygen concentration as provided in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section;
(iii) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas at the wellhead as
provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section;
(iv) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas every 10 vertical feet
of the well. This temperature can be monitored either with a removable
thermometer, or using temporary or permanent thermocouples installed in
the well;
(v) Monitor the methane concentration with a methane meter using
Method 3C of appendix A-6 to part 60, Method 18 of appendix A-6 to part
60, or a portable gas composition
[[Page 36713]]
analyzer to monitor the methane levels provided that the analyzer is
calibrated and the analyzer meets all quality assurance and quality
control requirements for Method 3C or Method 18;
(vi) Monitor carbon monoxide concentrations, as follows:
(A) Collect the sample from the wellhead sampling port in a
passivated canister or multi-layer foil gas sampling bag (such as the
Cali-5-Bond Bag) and analyzing that sample by an independent offsite
laboratory that uses Method 10 of appendix A-4 to part 60, or an
equivalent method with a detection limit of at least 100 ppmv of carbon
monoxide in high concentrations of methane; and
(B) Collect and analyze the sample from the wellhead using Method
10 of Appendix A-4 to part 60 to measure carbon monoxide
concentrations.
(vii) The enhanced monitoring in paragraph (a)(4) of this section
must be conducted on a weekly basis, beginning seven days after the
first measurement of landfill gas temperature greater than 62.8 degrees
Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit); and
(viii) The enhanced monitoring in paragraph (a)(4) of this section
can be stopped once a higher operating value is approved, at which time
the monitoring provisions issued with the higher operating value should
be followed, or once the measurement of landfill gas temperature at the
wellhead is less than or equal to 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees
Fahrenheit).
(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) using an enclosed combustor must calibrate,
maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications,
the following equipment:
(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous
recorder and having a minimum accuracy of 1 percent of the
temperature being measured expressed in degrees Celsius or 0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater. A temperature
monitoring device is not required for boilers or process heaters with
design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to the control device and bypass of
the control device (if applicable). The owner or operator must:
(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring
device that must record the flow to the control device at least every
15 minutes; and
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a
car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of
the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at least once every
month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and
that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) using a non-enclosed flare must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications
the following equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or
thermocouple, at the pilot light or the flame itself to indicate the
continuous presence of a flame; and
(2) A device that records flow to the flare and bypass of the flare
(if applicable). The owner or operator must:
(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring
device that records the flow to the control device at least every 15
minutes; and
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a
car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of
the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at least once every
month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and
that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
(d) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) using a device other than a non-enclosed flare
or an enclosed combustor or a treatment system must provide information
satisfactory to the Administrator as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2)
describing the operation of the control device, the operating
parameters that would indicate proper performance, and appropriate
monitoring procedures. The Administrator must review the information
and either approve it, or request that additional information be
submitted. The Administrator may specify additional appropriate
monitoring procedures.
(e) Each owner or operator seeking to install a collection system
that does not meet the specifications in Sec. 63.1962 or seeking to
monitor alternative parameters to those required by Sec. 63.1958
through Sec. 63.1961 must provide information satisfactory to the
Administrator as provided in Sec. Sec. 63.1981(d)(2) and (3)
describing the design and operation of the collection system, the
operating parameters that would indicate proper performance, and
appropriate monitoring procedures. The Administrator may specify
additional appropriate monitoring procedures.
(f) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with
the 500 parts per million surface methane operational standard in Sec.
63.1958(d) must monitor surface concentrations of methane according to
the procedures in Sec. 63.1960(c) and the instrument specifications in
Sec. 63.1960(d). If you are complying with the 500 parts per million
surface methane operational standard in Sec. 63.1958(d)(2), for
location, you must determine the latitude and longitude coordinates
using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters and the
coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal
places. In the semi-annual report in 63.1981(i), you must report the
location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per million methane
concentration as provided in Sec. 63.1958(d) and the concentration
recorded at each location for which an exceedance was recorded in the
previous month. Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances
of the operational standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring
periods may skip to annual monitoring. Any methane reading of 500 ppm
or more above background detected during the annual monitoring returns
the frequency for that landfill to quarterly monitoring.
(g) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(C) using a landfill gas treatment system must
calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's
specifications a device that records flow to the treatment system and
bypass of the treatment system (if applicable). Beginning no later than
[DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], each owner or operator must maintain and operate all
monitoring systems associated with the treatment system in accordance
with the site-specific treatment system monitoring plan required in
Sec. 63.1983(b)(5)(ii). The owner or operator must:
(1) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring
device that records the flow to the treatment system at least every 15
minutes; and
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-
seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the
seal or closure mechanism must be performed at least once every month
to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that
the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
(h) The monitoring requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d),
and (g) of this section apply at all times the affected source is
operating, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and
[[Page 36714]]
required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control
activities. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent,
not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You are
required to complete monitoring system repairs in response to
monitoring system malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to
operation as expeditiously as practicable. Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate
compliance with the temperature and nitrogen or oxygen operational
standards in introductory paragraph Sec. Sec. 63.1958(c)(1),
63.1958(d)(2), and 63.1958(e)(1), the standards apply at all times.
Sec. 63.1962 Specifications for active collection systems.
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(i) must site active collection wells, horizontal
collectors, surface collectors, or other extraction devices at a
sufficient density throughout all gas producing areas using the
following procedures unless alternative procedures have been approved
by the Administrator as provided in Sec. Sec. 63.1981(d)(2) and (3):
(1) The collection devices within the interior must be certified to
achieve comprehensive control of surface gas emissions by a
professional engineer. The following issues must be addressed in the
design: Depths of refuse, refuse gas generation rates and flow
characteristics, cover properties, gas system expandability, leachate
and condensate management, accessibility, compatibility with filling
operations, integration with closure end use, air intrusion control,
corrosion resistance, fill settlement, resistance to the refuse
decomposition heat, and ability to isolate individual components or
sections for repair or troubleshooting without shutting down entire
collection system.
(2) The sufficient density of gas collection devices determined in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section must address landfill gas migration
issues and augmentation of the collection system through the use of
active or passive systems at the landfill perimeter or exterior.
(3) The placement of gas collection devices determined in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section must control all gas producing areas, except as
provided by paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Any segregated area of asbestos or nondegradable material may
be excluded from collection if documented as provided under Sec.
63.1983(d). The documentation must provide the nature, date of
deposition, location and amount of asbestos or nondegradable material
deposited in the area and must be provided to the Administrator upon
request.
(ii) Any nonproductive area of the landfill may be excluded from
control, provided that the total of all excluded areas can be shown to
contribute less than 1 percent of the total amount of NMOC emissions
from the landfill. The amount, location, and age of the material must
be documented and provided to the Administrator upon request. A
separate NMOC emissions estimate must be made for each section proposed
for exclusion, and the sum of all such sections must be compared to the
NMOC emissions estimate for the entire landfill.
(A) The NMOC emissions from each section proposed for exclusion
must be computed using Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JY19.006
Where:
Qi = NMOC emission rate from the ith section,
megagrams per year.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per
megagram solid waste.
Mi = Mass of the degradable solid waste in the
ith section, megagram.
ti = Age of the solid waste in the ith
section, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of nonmethane organic compounds,
parts per million by volume.
3.6 x 10-9 = Conversion factor.
(B) If the owner/operator is proposing to exclude, or cease gas
collection and control from, nonproductive physically separated (e.g.,
separately lined) closed areas that already have gas collection
systems, NMOC emissions from each physically separated closed area must
be computed using either Equation 3 in Sec. 63.1959(c) or Equation 7
in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
(iii) The values for k and CNMOC determined in field
testing must be used if field testing has been performed in determining
the NMOC emission rate or the radii of influence (the distance from the
well center to a point in the landfill where the pressure gradient
applied by the blower or compressor approaches zero). If field testing
has not been performed, the default values for k, Lo and
CNMOC provided in Sec. 63.1959(a)(1) or the alternative
values from Sec. 63.1959(a)(5) must be used. The mass of nondegradable
solid waste contained within the given section may be subtracted from
the total mass of the section when estimating emissions provided the
nature, location, age, and amount of the nondegradable material is
documented as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(ii) must construct the gas collection devices using the
following equipment or procedures:
(1) The landfill gas extraction components must be constructed of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe,
fiberglass, stainless steel, or other nonporous corrosion resistant
material of suitable dimensions to: Convey projected amounts of gases;
withstand installation, static, and settlement forces; and withstand
planned overburden or traffic loads. The collection system must extend
as necessary to comply with emission and migration standards.
Collection devices such as wells and horizontal collectors must be
perforated to allow gas entry without head loss sufficient to impair
performance across the intended extent of control. Perforations must be
situated with regard to the need to prevent excessive air infiltration.
(2) Vertical wells must be placed so as not to endanger underlying
liners and must address the occurrence of water within the landfill.
Holes and trenches constructed for piped wells and horizontal
collectors must be of sufficient cross-section so as to allow for their
proper construction and completion including, for example, centering of
pipes and placement of gravel backfill. Collection devices must be
designed so as not to allow indirect short circuiting of air into the
cover or refuse into the collection system or gas into the air. Any
gravel used around pipe perforations should be of a dimension so as not
to penetrate or block perforations.
(3) Collection devices may be connected to the collection header
pipes below or above the landfill surface. The connector assembly must
include a positive closing throttle valve, any
[[Page 36715]]
necessary seals and couplings, access couplings and at least one
sampling port. The collection devices must be constructed of PVC, HDPE,
fiberglass, stainless steel, or other nonporous material of suitable
thickness.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) must convey the landfill gas to a control system in
compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) through the collection header
pipe(s). The gas mover equipment must be sized to handle the maximum
gas generation flow rate expected over the intended use period of the
gas moving equipment using the following procedures:
(1) For existing collection systems, the flow data must be used to
project the maximum flow rate. If no flow data exists, the procedures
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be used.
(2) For new collection systems, the maximum flow rate must be in
accordance with Sec. 63.1960(a)(1).
General and Continuing Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.1964 How is compliance determined?
Compliance is determined using performance testing, collection
system monitoring, continuous parameter monitoring, and other credible
evidence. In addition, continuous parameter monitoring data collected
under Sec. Sec. 63.1961(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d) are used to demonstrate
compliance with the operating standards for control systems. If a
deviation occurs, you have failed to meet the control device operating
standards described in this subpart and have deviated from the
requirements of this subpart.
(a) Before [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must develop a written SSM
plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). A copy of the SSM
plan must be maintained on site. Failure to write or maintain a copy of
the SSM plan is a deviation from the requirements of this subpart.
(b) After [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the SSM provisions of Sec. 63.6(e) no longer
apply to this subpart and the SSM plan developed under paragraph (a) of
this section no longer applies. Compliance with the emissions standards
and the operating standards of Sec. 63.1958 of this subpart is
required at all times.
Sec. 63.1965 What is a deviation?
A deviation is defined in Sec. 63.1990. For the purposes of the
landfill monitoring and SSM plan requirements, deviations include the
items in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) A deviation occurs when the control device operating parameter
boundaries described in Sec. 63.1983(c)(1) are exceeded.
(b) A deviation occurs when 1 hour or more of the hours during the
3-hour block averaging period does not constitute a valid hour of data.
A valid hour of data must have measured values for at least three 15-
minute monitoring periods within the hour.
(c) Before [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a deviation occurs when a SSM plan
is not developed or maintained on site and when an affected source
fails to meet any emission limitation, (including any operating limit),
or work practice requirement in this subpart during startup, shutdown,
or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted
by this subpart.
Sec. 63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour block average used to
demonstrate compliance?
Before [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], averages are calculated in the same way
as they are calculated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (Sec.
60.758(b)(2)(i) for average combustion temperature and Sec. 60.758(c)
for 3-hour average combustion temperature for enclosed combustors),
except that the data collected during the events listed in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section are not to be included in any average
computed under this subpart. Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],
averages are calculated according to Sec. Sec. 63.1983(b)(2)(i) and
63.1983(c)(1)(i) and the data collected during the events listed in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are included in any average
computed under this subpart.
(a) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments.
(b) Startups.
(c) Shutdowns.
(d) Malfunctions.
Notifications, Records, and Reports
Sec. 63.1981 What reports must I submit?
You must submit the reports specified in this section and the
reports specified in Table 1 to this subpart. If you have previously
submitted a design capacity report, amended design capacity report,
initial NMOC emission rate report, initial or revised collection and
control system design plan, closure report, equipment removal report,
or initial performance test under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR
part 60, subpart XXX; or the federal plan (40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG)
or EPA approved and effective state plan or tribal plan that implements
either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, then
that submission constitutes compliance with the design capacity report
in paragraph (a) of this section, the amended design capacity report in
paragraph (b) of this section, the initial NMOC emission rate report in
paragraph (c) of this section, the initial collection and control
system design plan in paragraph (d) of this section, the revised design
plan in paragraph (e) of this section, the closure report in paragraph
(f) of this section, the equipment removal report in paragraph (g) of
this section, and the initial performance test report in paragraph (i)
of this section. You do not need to re-submit the report(s). However,
you must include a statement certifying prior submission of the
respective report(s) and the date of submittal in the first semi-annual
report required in this section.
(a) Initial design capacity report. The initial design capacity
report must contain the information specified in Sec. 60.757(a)(2),
except beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the report must
contain:
(i) A map or plot of the landfill, providing the size and location
of the landfill, and identifying all areas where solid waste may be
landfilled according to the permit issued by the state, local, or
tribal agency responsible for regulating the landfill.
(ii) The maximum design capacity of the landfill. Where the maximum
design capacity is specified in the permit issued by the state, local,
or tribal agency responsible for regulating the landfill, a copy of the
permit specifying the maximum design capacity may be submitted as part
of the report. If the maximum design capacity of the landfill is not
specified in the permit, the maximum design capacity must be calculated
using good engineering practices. The calculations must be provided,
along with the relevant parameters as part of the report. The landfill
may calculate design capacity in either megagrams or cubic meters for
comparison with the exemption values. If the owner or operator chooses
to convert the design capacity from volume to mass or from mass to
volume
[[Page 36716]]
to demonstrate its design capacity is less than 2.5 million megagrams
or 2.5 million cubic meters, the calculation must include a site-
specific density, which must be recalculated annually. Any density
conversions must be documented and submitted with the design capacity
report. The state, tribal, local agency or Administrator may request
other reasonable information as may be necessary to verify the maximum
design capacity of the landfill.
(b) Amended design capacity report. An amended design capacity
report must be submitted to the Administrator providing notification of
an increase in the design capacity of the landfill, within 90 days of
an increase in the maximum design capacity of the landfill to meet or
exceed 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters. This
increase in design capacity may result from an increase in the
permitted volume of the landfill or an increase in the density as
documented in the annual recalculation required in Sec. 63.1983(f).
(c) NMOC emission rate report. Each owner or operator subject to
the requirements of this subpart must submit a copy of the latest NMOC
emission rate report that was submitted according to Sec. 60.757(b) or
submit an NMOC emission rate report to the Administrator initially and
annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A)
of this section. The Administrator may request such additional
information as may be necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission
rate. If you have submitted an annual report under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX; or the federal plan (40 CFR
part 62, subpart GGG) or an EPA approved and effective state plan or
tribal plan that implements either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cf, then that submission constitutes compliance with
the annual NMOC emission rate report in this paragraph. You do not need
to re-submit the annual report for the current year. Beginning no later
than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], the report must meet the the following requirements:
(1) The NMOC emission rate report must contain an annual or 5-year
estimate of the NMOC emission rate calculated using the formula and
procedures provided in Sec. 63.1959(a) or (b), as applicable.
(i) The initial NMOC emission rate report must be submitted no
later than 90 days after the date of commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after March 12,
1996.
(ii) Subsequent NMOC emission rate reports must be submitted
annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A)
of this section.
(A) If the estimated NMOC emission rate as reported in the annual
report to the Administrator is less than 50 megagrams per year in each
of the next 5 consecutive years, the owner or operator may elect to
submit, an estimate of the NMOC emission rate for the next 5-year
period in lieu of the annual report. This estimate must include the
current amount of solid waste-in-place and the estimated waste
acceptance rate for each year of the 5 years for which an NMOC emission
rate is estimated. All data and calculations upon which this estimate
is based must be provided to the Administrator. This estimate must be
revised at least once every 5 years. If the actual waste acceptance
rate exceeds the estimated waste acceptance rate in any year reported
in the 5-year estimate, a revised 5-year estimate must be submitted to
the Administrator. The revised estimate must cover the 5-year period
beginning with the year in which the actual waste acceptance rate
exceeded the estimated waste acceptance rate.
(B) The report must be submitted following the procedure specified
in paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
(2) The NMOC emission rate report must include all the data,
calculations, sample reports and measurements used to estimate the
annual or 5-year emissions.
(3) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this
subpart is exempted from the requirements to submit an NMOC emission
rate report, after installing a collection and control system that
complies with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2), during such time as the collection
and control system is in operation and in compliance with Sec. Sec.
63.1958 and 63.1960.
(d) Collection and control system design plan. Each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.1959(b)(2) must submit a
collection and control system design plan to the Administrator for
approval according to Sec. 60.757(c) and the schedule in Sec.
60.757(c)(1) and (2). Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], each owner
or operator subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.1959(b)(2) must
submit a collection and control system design plan to the Administrator
according to paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this section. The
collection and control system design plan must be prepared and approved
by a professional engineer.
(1) The collection and control system as described in the design
plan must meet the design requirements in Sec. 63.1959(b)(2).
(2) The collection and control system design plan must include any
alternatives to the operational standards, test methods, procedures,
compliance measures, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting provisions
of Sec. Sec. 63.1957 through 63.1983 proposed by the owner or
operator.
(3) The collection and control system design plan must either
conform with specifications for active collection systems in Sec.
63.1962 or include a demonstration to the Administrator's satisfaction
of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions to Sec. 63.1962.
(4) Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill affected by this
subpart must submit a collection and control system design plan to the
Administrator for approval within 1 year of becoming subject to this
subpart.
(5) The landfill owner or operator must notify the Administrator
that the design plan is completed and submit a copy of the plan's
signature page. The Administrator has 90 days to decide whether the
design plan should be submitted for review. If the Administrator
chooses to review the plan, the approval process continues as described
in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. In the event that the design plan
is required to be modified to obtain approval, the owner or operator
must take any steps necessary to conform any prior actions to the
approved design plan and any failure to do so could result in an
enforcement action.
(6) Upon receipt of an initial or revised design plan, the
Administrator must review the information submitted under paragraphs
(d)(1) through (3) of this section and either approve it, disapprove
it, or request that additional information be submitted. Because of the
many site-specific factors involved with landfill gas system design,
alternative systems may be necessary. A wide variety of system designs
are possible, such as vertical wells, combination horizontal and
vertical collection systems, or horizontal trenches only, leachate
collection components, and passive systems.
(e) Revised design plan. Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the
owner or operator who has already been required to submit a design plan
under paragraph (d) of this section must
[[Page 36717]]
submit a revised design plan to the Administrator for approval as
follows:
(1) At least 90 days before expanding operations to an area not
covered by the previously approved design plan.
(2) Prior to installing or expanding the gas collection system in a
way that is not consistent with the design plan that was submitted to
the Administrator according to paragraph (d) of this section.
(f) Closure report. Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill
must submit a closure report to the Administrator within 30 days of
waste acceptance cessation. The Administrator may request additional
information as may be necessary to verify that permanent closure has
taken place in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 258.60. If a
closure report has been submitted to the Administrator, no additional
wastes may be placed into the landfill without filing a notification of
modification as described under Sec. 63.9(b).
(g) Equipment removal report. Each owner or operator of a
controlled landfill must submit an equipment removal report as provided
in Sec. 60.757(e). Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill
must submit an equipment removal report to the Administrator 30 days
prior to removal or cessation of operation of the control equipment.
(1) Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the equipment
removal report must contain all of the following items:
(i) A copy of the closure report submitted in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section;
(ii) A copy of the initial performance test report demonstrating
that the 15-year minimum control period has expired, or information
that demonstrates that the gas collection and control system will be
unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows. In the
equipment removal report, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s)
tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted may be
submitted in lieu of the performance test report if the report has been
previously submitted to the EPA's CDX; and
(iii) Dated copies of three successive NMOC emission rate reports
demonstrating that the landfill is no longer producing 50 megagrams or
greater of NMOC per year. If the NMOC emission rate reports have been
previously submitted to the EPA's CDX, a statement that the NMOC
emission rate reports have been submitted electronically and the dates
that the reports were submitted to the EPA's CDX may be submitted in
the equipment removal report in lieu of the NMOC emission rate reports.
(2) The Administrator may request such additional information as
may be necessary to verify that all of the conditions for removal in
Sec. 63.1957(b) have been met.
(h) Semi-annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill seeking
to comply with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2) using an active collection system
designed in accordance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii) must submit to the
Administrator semi-annual reports. Beginning no later than [DATE 18
MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], you must submit the report, following the procedure
specified in paragraph (l) of this section. The initial report must be
submitted within 180 days of installation and startup of the collection
and control system and must include the initial performance test report
required under Sec. 63.7, as applicable. In the initial report, the
process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such
performance test was conducted may be submitted in lieu of the
performance test report if the report has been previously submitted to
the EPA's CDX. For enclosed combustion devices and flares, reportable
exceedances are defined under Sec. 63.1983(c). The semi-annual reports
must contain the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (8) of this
section.
(1) Number of times that applicable parameters monitored under
Sec. Sec. 63.1958(b) through (e) were exceeded. For each instance,
report the date, time, and duration of each failure.
(i) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the temperature and
nitrogen or oxygen operational standards in introductory paragraph
Sec. 63.1958(c), provide a statement of the wellhead operational
standard for temperature and oxygen you are complying with for the
period covered by the report. Indicate the number of times each of
those parameters monitored under Sec. 63.1961(a)(3) were exceeded. For
each instance, report the date, time, and duration of each failure.
(ii) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), provide a statement of the
wellhead operational standard for temperature and oxygen you are
complying with for the period covered by the report. Indicate the
number of times each of those parameters monitored under Sec.
63.1961(a)(4) were exceeded. For each instance, report the date, time,
and duration of each failure.
(iii) Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], number of times the
parameters for the site-specific treatment system in Sec. 63.1961(g)
were exceeded.
(2) Description and duration of all periods when the gas stream was
diverted from the control device or treatment system through a bypass
line or the indication of bypass flow as specified under Sec. 63.1961.
(3) Description and duration of all periods when the control device
or treatment system was not operating and length of time the control
device or treatment system was not operating.
(4) All periods when the collection system was not operating.
(5) The location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per million
methane concentration as provided in Sec. 63.1958(d) and the
concentration recorded at each location for which an exceedance was
recorded in the previous month. Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for
location, you record the latitude and longitude coordinates using an
instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must
be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal places.
(6) The date of installation and the location of each well or
collection system expansion added pursuant to Sec. 63.1960(a)(3)
through (4), (b), and (c)(4).
(7) For any corrective action analysis for which corrective actions
are required in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3)(i), or Sec. 63.1960(a)(5) and that
take more than 60 days to correct the exceedance, the root cause
analysis conducted, including a description of the recommended
corrective action(s), the date for corrective action(s) already
completed following the positive pressure or high temperature reading,
and, for action(s) not already completed, a schedule for
implementation, including proposed commencement and completion dates.
(8) Each owner or operator required to conduct enhanced monitoring
in Sec. 63.1961(a)(5) must include the results of all monitoring
activities conducted during the period.
(i) For each monitoring point, report the date, time, and well
identifier along with the value and units of measure for oxygen,
temperature (wellhead and
[[Page 36718]]
downwell), methane and carbon monoxide.
(ii) Include a summary trend analysis for each well subject to the
enhanced monitoring requirements to chart the weekly readings over time
for oxygen, temperature (wellhead and downwell), methane, and carbon
monoxide.
(iii) Include the date, time, staff person name, and description of
findings for each visual observation for subsurface oxidation event.
(i) Initial performance test report. Each owner or operator seeking
to comply with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) must include the following
information with the initial performance test report required under
Sec. 63.7:
(1) A diagram of the collection system showing collection system
positioning including all wells, horizontal collectors, surface
collectors, or other gas extraction devices, including the locations of
any areas excluded from collection and the proposed sites for the
future collection system expansion;
(2) The data upon which the sufficient density of wells, horizontal
collectors, surface collectors, or other gas extraction devices and the
gas mover equipment sizing are based;
(3) The documentation of the presence of asbestos or nondegradable
material for each area from which collection wells have been excluded
based on the presence of asbestos or nondegradable material;
(4) The sum of the gas generation flow rates for all areas from
which collection wells have been excluded based on nonproductivity and
the calculations of gas generation flow rate for each excluded area;
(5) The provisions for increasing gas mover equipment capacity with
increased gas generation flow rate, if the present gas mover equipment
is inadequate to move the maximum flow rate expected over the life of
the landfill; and
(6) The provisions for the control of off-site migration.
(j) Corrective action and the corresponding timeline. The owner or
operator must submit information regarding corrective actions according
to paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For corrective action that is required according to Sec.
63.1960(a)(3) or Sec. 63.1960(a)(4) and is not completed within 60
days after the initial exceedance, you must submit a notification to
the Administrator as soon as practicable but no later than 75 days
after the first measurement of positive pressure or temperature
exceedance.
(2) For corrective action that is required according to Sec.
63.1960(a)(3) or Sec. 63.1960(a)(4) and is expected to take longer
than 120 days after the initial exceedance to complete, you must submit
the root cause analysis, corrective action analysis, and corresponding
implementation timeline to the Administrator as soon as practicable but
no later than 75 days after the first measurement of positive pressure
or temperature monitoring value of 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees
Fahrenheit) or above. The Administrator must approve the plan for
corrective action and the corresponding timeline.
(k) 24-hour high temperature report. Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate
compliance with the operational standard for temperature in Sec.
63.1958(c)(1) and a landfill gas temperature measured at either the
wellhead or at any point in the well is greater than or equal to 76.7
degrees Celsius (170 degrees Fahrenheit) and the carbon monoxide
concentration measured is greater than or equal to 1,500 ppmv, then you
must report the date, time, well identifier, temperature and carbon
monoxide reading via email to the Administrator within 24 hours of the
measurement.
(l) Electronic reporting. Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the
owner or operator must submit reports electronically according to
paragraphs (l)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(l)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(ii) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test. The results of the performance test must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with
the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT
generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(iii) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (a) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the
procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA
via the CEDRI. The CEDRI interface can be accessed through the EPA's
CDX. The owner or operator must use the appropriate electronic report
in CEDRI for this subpart or an alternate electronic file format
consistent with the XML schema listed on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). If the reporting form
specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the
report is due, the owner or operator must submit the report to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13. Once
the form has been available in CEDRI for 90 days, the owner or operator
must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports
must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted.
(m) Claims of EPA system outage. Beginning no later than [DATE 18
MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], if you are required to electronically submit a report
through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system
outage for failure to comply timely with the reporting requirement. To
assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the following
requirements:
[[Page 36719]]
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(n) Claims of force majeure. Beginning no later than [DATE 18
MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], if you are required to electronically submit a report
through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure
for failure to comply timely with the reporting requirement. To assert
a claim of force majeure, you must meet the following requirements:
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to
the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
Sec. 63.1982 What records and reports must I submit and keep for
bioreactors or liquids addition other than leachate?
Submit reports as specified in this section and Sec. 63.1981. Keep
records as specified in this section and Sec. 63.1983.
(a) For bioreactors at new affected sources you must submit the
initial semi-annual compliance report and performance test results
described in Sec. 63.1981(h) within 180 days after the date you are
required to begin operating the gas collection and control system by
Sec. 63.1947(a)(2).
(b) If you must submit a semi-annual compliance report for a
bioreactor as well as a semi-annual compliance report for a
conventional portion of the same landfill, you may delay submittal of a
subsequent semi-annual compliance report for the bioreactor according
to paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section so that the reports
may be submitted on the same schedule.
(1) After submittal of your initial semi-annual compliance report
and performance test results for the bioreactor, you may delay
submittal of the subsequent semi-annual compliance report for the
bioreactor until the date the initial or subsequent semi-annual
compliance report is due for the conventional portion of your landfill.
(2) You may delay submittal of your subsequent semi-annual
compliance report by no more than 12 months after the due date for
submitting the initial semi-annual compliance report and performance
test results described in Sec. 63.1981(h) for the bioreactor. The
report must cover the time period since the previous semi-annual report
for the bioreactor, which would be a period of at least 6 months and no
more than 12 months.
(3) After the delayed semi-annual report, all subsequent semi-
annual reports for the bioreactor must be submitted every 6 months on
the same date the semi-annual report for the conventional portion of
the landfill is due.
(c) If you add any liquids other than leachate in a controlled
fashion to the waste mass and do not comply with the bioreactor
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.1947 and 63.1955(b) and paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section, you must keep a record of calculations showing
that the percent moisture by weight expected in the waste mass to which
liquid is added is less than 40 percent. The calculation must consider
the waste mass, moisture content of the incoming waste, mass of water
added to the waste including leachate recirculation and other liquids
addition and precipitation, and the mass of water removed through
leachate or other water losses. Moisture level sampling or mass
balances calculations can be used. You must document the calculations
and the basis of any assumptions. Keep the record of the calculations
until you cease liquids addition.
(d) If you calculate moisture content to establish the date your
bioreactor is required to begin operating the collection and control
system under Sec. 63.1947(a)(2) or (c)(2), keep a record of the
calculations including the information specified in paragraph (e) of
this section for 5 years. Within 90 days after the bioreactor achieves
40 percent moisture content, report the results of the calculation, the
date the bioreactor achieved 40 percent moisture content by weight, and
the date you plan to begin collection and control system operation to
the Administrator. Beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the reports
should be submitted following the procedure specified in Sec.
63.1981(l)(2).
Sec. 63.1983 What records must I keep?
You must keep records as specified in this subpart. You must also
keep records as specified in the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63
as shown in Table 1 to this subpart.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator
[[Page 36720]]
of an MSW landfill subject to the provisions of Sec. Sec.
60.762(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date,
readily accessible, on-site records of the design capacity report that
triggered Sec. 60.762(b), the current amount of solid waste in-place,
and the year-by-year waste acceptance rate. Off-site records may be
maintained if they are retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper copy or
electronic formats are acceptable.
(b) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator of a controlled landfill must keep up-to-date, readily
accessible records for the life of the control system equipment of the
data listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section as
measured during the initial performance test or compliance
determination. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring must be
maintained for a minimum of 5 years. Records of the control device
vendor specifications must be maintained until removal.
(1) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii):
(i) The maximum expected gas generation flow rate as calculated in
Sec. 63.1960(a)(1).
(ii) The density of wells, horizontal collectors, surface
collectors, or other gas extraction devices determined using the
procedures specified in Sec. Sec. 63.1962(a)(1) and (2).
(2) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)
through use of an enclosed combustion device other than a boiler or
process heater with a design heat input capacity equal to or greater
than 44 megawatts:
(i) The average temperature measured at least every 15 minutes and
averaged over the same time period of the performance test.
(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC determined as specified in Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(B) achieved by the control device.
(3) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) through use of a boiler or process heater of
any size: A description of the location at which the collected gas vent
stream is introduced into the boiler or process heater over the same
time period of the performance testing.
(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A) through use of a non-enclosed flare, the flare
type (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or nonassisted), all visible
emission readings, heat content determination, flow rate or bypass flow
rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the
performance test as specified in Sec. 63.11; continuous records of the
flare pilot flame or flare flame monitoring and records of all periods
of operations during which the pilot flame or the flare flame is
absent.
(5) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(C) through use of a landfill gas treatment system:
(i) Bypass records. Records of the flow of landfill gas to, and
bypass of, the treatment system.
(ii) Site-specific treatment monitoring plan. Beginning no later
than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator must prepare a site-specific
treament monitoring plan to include:
(A) Monitoring records of parameters that are identified in the
treatment system monitoring plan and that ensure the treatment system
is operating properly for each intended end use of the treated landfill
gas. At a minimum, records should include records of filtration, de-
watering, and compression parameters that ensure the treatment system
is operating properly for each intended end use of the treated landfill
gas.
(B) Monitoring methods, frequencies, and operating ranges for each
monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer's recommendations
or engineering analysis for each intended end use of the treated
landfill gas.
(C) Documentation of the monitoring methods and ranges, along with
justification for their use.
(D) List of responsible staff (by job title) for data collection.
(E) Processes and methods used to collect the necessary data.
(F) Description of the procedures and methods that are used for
quality assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous monitoring
systems.
(c) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator of a controlled landfill subject to the provisions of this
subpart must keep for 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible continuous
records of the equipment operating parameters specified to be monitored
in Sec. 63.1961 as well as up-to-date, readily accessible records for
periods of operation during which the parameter boundaries established
during the most recent performance test are exceeded.
(1) The following constitute exceedances that must be recorded and
reported under Sec. 63.1981(h):
(i) For enclosed combustors except for boilers and process heaters
with design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts (150 million British
thermal units per hour) or greater, all 3-hour periods of operation
during which the average temperature was more than 28 degrees Celsius
(82 degrees Fahrenheit) below the average combustion temperature during
the most recent performance test at which compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) was determined.
(ii) For boilers or process heaters, whenever there is a change in
the location at which the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone
as required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart must keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of
the indication of flow to the control system and the indication of
bypass flow or records of monthly inspections of car-seals or lock-and-
key configurations used to seal bypass lines, specified under
Sec. Sec. 63.1961(b)(2)(ii), 63.1961(c)(2)(ii), and 63.1961(g)(2).
(3) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart who uses a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 44 megawatts or greater to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) must keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record
of all periods of operation of the boiler or process heater. Examples
of such records could include records of steam use, fuel use, or
monitoring data collected pursuant to other state, local, tribal, or
federal regulatory requirements.
(4) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions of
this subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare must keep up-to-date,
readily accessible continuous records of the flame or flare pilot flame
monitoring specified under Sec. 63.1961(c), and up-to-date, readily
accessible records of all periods of operation in which the flame or
flare pilot flame is absent.
(5) Each owner or operator of a landfill seeking to comply with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2) using an active collection system designed in
accordance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii) must keep records of periods
when the collection system or control device is not operating.
(6) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
in Sec. 63.1958(e)(1), the date, time, and
[[Page 36721]]
duration of each startup and/or shutdown period, recording the periods
when the affected source was subject to the standard applicable to
startup and shutdown.
(7) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
in Sec. 63.1958(e)(1), in the event that an affected unit fails to
meet an applicable standard, record the information below in this
paragraph:
(i) For each failure record the date, time and duration of each
failure and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if
applicable).
(ii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard; record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment.
(iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
the general duty of Sec. 63.1955(c) and any corrective actions taken
to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(d) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for the
life of the collection system an up-to-date, readily accessible plot
map showing each existing and planned collector in the system and
providing a unique identification location label for each collector.
(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart must keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of the
installation date and location of all newly installed collectors as
specified under Sec. 63.1960(b).
(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart must keep readily accessible documentation of the nature, date
of deposition, amount, and location of asbestos-containing or
nondegradable waste excluded from collection as provided in Sec.
63.1962(a)(3)(i) as well as any nonproductive areas excluded from
collection as provided in Sec. 63.1962(a)(3)(ii).
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for at
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of the following:
(1) All collection and control system exceedances of the
operational standards in Sec. 63.1958, the reading in the subsequent
month whether or not the second reading is an exceedance, and the
location of each exceedance.
(2) Each owner or operator subject to the control provisions of
this subpart must keep records of each wellhead temperature monitoring
value of greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit), each
wellhead nitrogen level at or above 20 percent, and each wellhead
oxygen level at or above 5 percent, except:
(i) When an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the compliance provisions
for wellhead temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), but no later than
[DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], the records of each wellhead temperature monitoring value of
62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit) or above instead of
values greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit).
(i) Each owner or operator required to conduct the enhanced
monitoring provisions in Sec. 63.1961(a)(4), must also keep records of
all enhanced monitoring activities.
(ii) Each owner or operator required to submit the 24-hour high
temperature report in Sec. 63.1981(k), must also keep a record of the
email transmission.
(3) For any root cause analysis for which corrective actions are
required in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(A) or Sec. 63.1960(a)(4)(i)(A),
keep a record of the root cause analysis conducted, including a
description of the recommended corrective action(s) taken, and the
date(s) the corrective action(s) were completed.
(4) For any root cause analysis for which corrective actions are
required in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(b) or Sec. 63.1960(a)(4)(i)(B),
keep a record of the root cause analysis conducted, the corrective
action analysis, the date for corrective action(s) already completed
following the positive pressure reading or high temperature reading,
and, for action(s) not already completed, a schedule for
implementation, including proposed commencement and completion dates.
(5) For any root cause analysis for which corrective actions are
required in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3)(iii) or Sec. 63.1960(a)(4)(i)(C), keep
a record of the root cause analysis conducted, the corrective action
analysis, the date for corrective action(s) already completed following
the positive pressure reading or high temperature reading, for
action(s) not already completed, a schedule for implementation,
including proposed commencement and completion dates, and a copy of any
comments or final approval on the corrective action analysis or
schedule from the Administrator.
(f) Landfill owners or operators who convert design capacity from
volume to mass or mass to volume to demonstrate that landfill design
capacity is less than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic
meters, as provided in the definition of ``design capacity'', must keep
readily accessible, on-site records of the annual recalculation of
site-specific density, design capacity, and the supporting
documentation. Off-site records may be maintained if they are
retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper copy or electronic formats are
acceptable.
(g) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for at
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of all collection
and control system monitoring data for parameters measured in Sec.
63.1961(a)(1) through (5).
(h) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), you must keep the following
records.
(1) Records of the landfill gas temperature on a monthly basis as
monitored in Sec. 63.1960(a)(4).
(2) Records of enhanced monitoring data at each well with a
measurement of landfill gas temperature greater than 62.8 degrees
Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit) and less than 76.7 degrees Celsius
(170 degrees Fahrenheit) as gathered in Sec. 63.1961(a)(5).
(i) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.1985 Who enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a
delegated authority such as the applicable state, local, or tribal
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a state,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency as well as the EPA has the
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable
EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a
State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the
State, local, or tribal agency.
[[Page 36722]]
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are as follows. Approval of alternatives to the
standards in Sec. Sec. 63.1955 through 63.1962. Where these standards
reference another subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated
according to the delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
Sec. 63.1990 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR
part 60, subparts A, Cc, Cf, WWW, and XXX; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG,
and 40 CFR part 63 subpart A, and this section that follows:
Active collection system means a gas collection system that uses
gas mover equipment.
Active landfill means a landfill in which solid waste is being
placed or a landfill that is planned to accept waste in the future.
Bioreactor means an MSW landfill or portion of an MSW landfill
where any liquid other than leachate (leachate includes landfill gas
condensate) is added in a controlled fashion into the waste mass (often
in combination with recirculating leachate) to reach a minimum average
moisture content of at least 40 percent by weight to accelerate or
enhance the anaerobic (without oxygen) biodegradation of the waste.
Closed area means a separately lined area of an MSW landfill in
which solid waste is no longer being placed. If additional solid waste
is placed in that area of the landfill, that landfill area is no longer
closed. The area must be separately lined to ensure that the landfill
gas does not migrate between open and closed areas.
Closed landfill means a landfill in which solid waste is no longer
being placed, and in which no additional solid wastes will be placed
without first filing a notification of modification as prescribed under
Sec. 63.9(b). Once a notification of modification has been filed, and
additional solid waste is placed in the landfill, the landfill is no
longer closed.
Closure means that point in time when a landfill becomes a closed
landfill.
Commercial solid waste means all types of solid waste generated by
stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and other nonmanufacturing
activities, excluding residential and industrial wastes.
Controlled landfill means any landfill at which collection and
control systems are required under this subpart as a result of the
nonmethane organic compounds emission rate. The landfill is considered
controlled at the time a collection and control system design plan is
submitted in compliance with Sec. 60.752(b)(2)(i) if submitted before
[DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] or in compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(i) if
submitted after [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
Corrective action analysis means a description of all reasonable
interim and long-term measures, if any, that are available, and an
explanation of why the selected corrective action(s) is/are the best
alternative(s), including, but not limited to, considerations of cost
effectiveness, technical feasibility, safety, and secondary impacts.
Cover penetration means a wellhead, a part of a landfill gas
collection or operations system, and/or any other object that
completely passes through the landfill cover. The landfill cover
includes that portion which covers the waste, as well as the portion
which borders the waste extended to the point where it is sealed with
the landfill liner or the surrounding land mass. Examples of what is
not a penetration for purposes of this subpart include but are not
limited to: Survey stakes, fencing including litter fences, flags,
signs, utility posts, and trees so long as these items do not pass
through the landfill cover.
Design capacity means the maximum amount of solid waste a landfill
can accept, as indicated in terms of volume or mass in the most recent
permit issued by the state, local, or tribal agency responsible for
regulating the landfill, plus any in-place waste not accounted for in
the most recent permit. If the owner or operator chooses to convert the
design capacity from volume to mass or from mass to volume to
demonstrate its design capacity is less than 2.5 million megagrams or
2.5 million cubic meters, the calculation must include a site-specific
density, which must be recalculated annually.
Deviation before [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER],means any instance in which an
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of
such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation, (including any operating
limit), or work practice requirement in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Deviation beginning no later than [DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], means any instance
in which an affected source subject to this subpart or an owner or
operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, or operating
limit, or work practice requirement; or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
Disposal facility means all contiguous land and structures, other
appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the disposal of
solid waste.
Emissions limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit,
operating limit, or visible emissions limit.
Enclosed combustor means an enclosed firebox which maintains a
relatively constant limited peak temperature generally using a limited
supply of combustion air. An enclosed flare is considered an enclosed
combustor.
EPA approved State plan means a State plan that EPA has approved
based on the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B to implement and
enforce 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc or Cf. An approved state plan
becomes effective on the date specified in the notice published in the
Federal Register announcing EPA's approval.
EPA approved Tribal plan means a plan submitted by a tribal
authority pursuant to 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81 to implement
and enforce 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or subpart Cf.
Federal plan means the EPA plan to implement 40 CFR part 60,
subparts Cc or Cf for existing MSW landfills located in States and
Indian country where state plans or tribal plans are not currently in
effect. On the effective date of an EPA approved state or tribal plan,
the federal plan no longer applies. The federal plan implementing 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cc is found at 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG.
[[Page 36723]]
Flare means an open combustor without enclosure or shroud.
Gas mover equipment means the equipment (i.e., fan, blower,
compressor) used to transport landfill gas through the header system.
Household waste means any solid waste (including garbage, trash,
and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from households (including,
but not limited to, single and multiple residences, hotels and motels,
bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic
grounds, and day-use recreation areas). Household waste does not
include fully segregated yard waste. Segregated yard waste means
vegetative matter resulting exclusively from the cutting of grass, the
pruning and/or removal of bushes, shrubs, and trees, the weeding of
gardens, and other landscaping maintenance activities. Household waste
does not include construction, renovation, or demolition wastes, even
if originating from a household.
Industrial solid waste means solid waste generated by manufacturing
or industrial processes that is not a hazardous waste regulated under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, parts 264 and
265 of this chapter. Such waste may include, but is not limited to,
waste resulting from the following manufacturing processes: Electric
power generation; fertilizer/agricultural chemicals; food and related
products/by-products; inorganic chemicals; iron and steel
manufacturing; leather and leather products; nonferrous metals
manufacturing/foundries; organic chemicals; plastics and resins
manufacturing; pulp and paper industry; rubber and miscellaneous
plastic products; stone, glass, clay, and concrete products; textile
manufacturing; transportation equipment; and water treatment. This term
does not include mining waste or oil and gas waste.
Interior well means any well or similar collection component
located inside the perimeter of the landfill waste. A perimeter well
located outside the landfilled waste is not an interior well.
Landfill means an area of land or an excavation in which wastes are
placed for permanent disposal, and that is not a land application unit,
surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile as those terms are
defined under Sec. 257.2 of this title.
Lateral expansion means a horizontal expansion of the waste
boundaries of an existing MSW landfill. A lateral expansion is not a
modification unless it results in an increase in the design capacity of
the landfill.
Leachate recirculation means the practice of taking the leachate
collected from the landfill and reapplying it to the landfill by any of
one of a variety of methods, including pre-wetting of the waste, direct
discharge into the working face, spraying, infiltration ponds, vertical
injection wells, horizontal gravity distribution systems, and pressure
distribution systems.
Modification means an increase in the permitted volume design
capacity of the landfill by either lateral or vertical expansion based
on its permitted design capacity after November 7, 2000. Modification
does not occur until the owner or operator commences construction on
the lateral or vertical expansion.
Municipal solid waste landfill or MSW landfill means an entire
disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household
waste is placed in or on land. An MSW landfill may also receive other
types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes (Sec. 257.2 of this title) such as
commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small
quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste. Portions of an
MSW landfill may be separated by access roads. An MSW landfill may be
publicly or privately owned. An MSW landfill may be a new MSW landfill,
an existing MSW landfill, or a lateral expansion.
Municipal solid waste landfill emissions or MSW landfill emissions
means gas generated by the decomposition of organic waste deposited in
an MSW landfill or derived from the evolution of organic compounds in
the waste.
NMOC means nonmethane organic compounds, as measured according to
the provisions of Sec. 63.1959.
Nondegradable waste means any waste that does not decompose through
chemical breakdown or microbiological activity. Examples are, but are
not limited to, concrete, municipal waste combustor ash, and metals.
Passive collection system means a gas collection system that solely
uses positive pressure within the landfill to move the gas rather than
using gas mover equipment.
Root cause analysis means an assessment conducted through a process
of investigation to determine the primary cause, and any other
contributing causes, of an exceedance of a standard operating parameter
at a wellhead.
Segregated yard waste means vegetative matter resulting exclusively
from the cutting of grass, the pruning and/or removal of bushes,
shrubs, and trees, the weeding of gardens, and other landscaping
maintenance activities.
Sludge means the term sludge as defined in Sec. 258.2.
Solid waste means the term solid waste as defined in Sec. 258.2.
Sufficient density means any number, spacing, and combination of
collection system components, including vertical wells, horizontal
collectors, and surface collectors, necessary to maintain emission and
migration control as determined by measures of performance set forth in
this subpart.
Sufficient extraction rate means a rate sufficient to maintain a
negative pressure at all wellheads in the collection system without
causing air infiltration, including any wellheads connected to the
system as a result of expansion or excess surface emissions, for the
life of the blower.
Treated landfill gas means landfill gas processed in a treatment
system as defined in this subpart.
Treatment system means a system that filters, de-waters, and
compresses landfill gas for sale or beneficial use.
Untreated landfill gas means any landfill gas that is not treated
landfill gas.
Work practice requirement means any design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is
promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
As specified in this subpart, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to you.
[[Page 36724]]
Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63--Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions to Subpart AAAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
subpart AAAA Applicable to
before [date 18 subpart AAAA after
months + 1 day [date 18 months
Part 63 citation Description after date of after date of Explanation
publication of publication of
final rule in the final rule in the
Federal Register] Federal Register]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a).................. Applicability: Yes............... Yes...............
general
applicability of
NESHAP in this
part.
Sec. 63.1(b).................. Applicability Yes............... Yes...............
determination for
stationary
sources.
Sec. 63.1(c).................. Applicability No \a\............ Yes...............
after a standard
has been set.
Sec. 63.1(e).................. Applicability of Yes............... Yes...............
permit program
before relevant
standard is set.
Sec. 63.2..................... Definitions....... Yes............... Yes...............
Sec. 63.3..................... Units and No \a\............ Yes...............
abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4..................... Prohibited Yes............... Yes...............
activities and
circumvention.
Sec. 63.5(a).................. Construction/ No \a\............ Yes...............
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b).................. Requirements for Yes............... Yes...............
existing, newly
constructed, and
reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.5(d).................. Application for No \a\............ Yes...............
approval of
construction or
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)-(f).............. Approval of No \a\............ Yes...............
construction and
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a).................. Compliance with No \a\............ Yes...............
standards and
maintenance
requirements -
applicability.
Sec. 63.6(b)-(c).............. Compliance dates No \a\............ Yes...............
for new,
reconstructed,
and existing
sources.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii)....... Operation and Yes............... No................ See Sec.
maintenance 63.1955(c) for
requirements. general duty
requirements.
63.6(e)(3)(i)-(ix).............. Startup, shutdown, Yes............... No................
and malfunction
plan.
63.6(f)(1)...................... Exemption of Yes............... No................
nonopacity
emission
standards during
SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)........... Compliance with Yes............... Yes...............
nonopacity
emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(g).................. Use of an No \a\............ Yes...............
alternative
nonopacity
standard.
Sec. 63.6(h).................. Compliance with No \a\............ No................ Subpart AAAA does
opacity and not prescribe
visible emission opacity or
standards. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.7..................... Performance No \a\............ Yes...............
testing.
Sec. 63.8..................... Monitoring No \a\............ Yes...............
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d).............. Notifications..... No \a\............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.9(e).................. Notification of No \a\............ Yes...............
compliance test.
Sec. 63.9(f).................. Notification of No \a\............ No................ Subpart AAAA does
visible emissions/ not prescribe
opacity test. opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g).................. Notification when No \a\............ Yes...............
using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(h).................. Notification of No \a\............ Yes...............
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(i).................. Adjustment of No \a\............ Yes...............
submittal
deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j).................. Change in No \a\............ Yes...............
information
already provided.
Sec. 63.10(a)................. Recordkeeping and No \a\............ ..................
reporting--genera
l.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).............. General No \a\............ Yes...............
recordkeeping.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)........... Startup and Yes............... No................ See Sec.
shutdown records. 63.1983(c)(6) for
recordkeeping for
periods of
startup and
shutdown.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii).......... Recordkeeping of Yes............... No................ See Sec.
failures to meet 63.1983(c)(6)-(7)
a standard. for recordkeeping
for any
exceedance of a
standard.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)......... Recordkeeping of Yes............... Yes...............
maintenance on
air pollution
control equipment.
[[Page 36725]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...... Actions taken to Yes............... No................ See Sec.
minimize 63.1983(c)(7) for
emissions during recordkeeping of
SSM. corrective
actions to
restore
compliance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(vi)............. Recordkeeping for No \a\............ Yes...............
CMS malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(vii)-(xiv)...... Other No \a\............ Yes...............
Recordkeeping of
compliance
measurements.
Sec. 63.10(c)................. Additional No \a\............ .................. See Sec. 63.1983
recordkeeping for for required CMS
sources with CMS. recordkeeping.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1).............. General reporting. No \a\............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.10(d)(2).............. Reporting of No \a\............ Yes...............
performance test
results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).............. Reporting of No \a\............ Yes...............
visible emission
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).............. Progress reports No \a\............ Yes...............
for compliance
date extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).............. SSM reporting..... Yes............... No................ All exceedances
must be reported
in the semi-
annual report
required by Sec.
63.1981(h).
Sec. 63.10(e)................. Additional No \a\............ Yes...............
reporting for CMS
systems.
Sec. 63.10(f)................. Recordkeeping/ No \a\............ Yes...............
reporting waiver.
Sec. 63.11.................... Control device No \a\............ Yes............... Sec. 60.18 is
requirements/ required before
flares. [DATE 18 MONTHS +
1 DAY AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].
However, Sec.
60.18 and 63.11
are equivalent.
Sec. 63.12(a)................. State authority... Yes............... Yes...............
Sec. 63.12(b)-(c)............. State delegations. No \a\............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.13.................... Addresses......... No \a\............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.14.................... Incorporation by No \a\............ Yes...............
reference.
Sec. 63.15.................... Availability of Yes............... Yes...............
information and
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Before [DATE 18 MONTHS + 1 DAY AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], this
subpart requires affected facilities to follow 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, which incorporates the General
Provisions of 40 CFR part 60.
[FR Doc. 2019-14473 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P